Uber

kippy

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Saying ‘but it’s innovative because innovation experts have said so’ isn’t much of an argument.

Throughout the course of this thread you have failed:

- to differentiate the Uber app from MyTaxi
- to differentiate ridesharing from taxiing

I look forward to the next one thousand posts of tail chasing though...

Indeed, the poster is happy to take on board these experts opinion but wasn't eager to take on board the experts that stated that Uber was a transport company.

Spook_ie

makeorbrake wrote: »

You can be as disingenous as you want. The post youre referring to was in response to both of your claims that there's no innovation to be seen here.

You're also going back over ground covered. Other than that, I clearly stated that the WAV requirement needs to be dropped. I also have stated consistently that regulation should be completely separate as ride sharing and taxi'ing are not the same. Perhaps you have memory issues. I'd get that checked out if I was you.


As regards 'sharing economy' being a 'buzzword' how embarrassing for you.

Regulations are nothing to do with taxiing, majority of regulations are for use of any SPSV in Ireland, so which ones do you think we should soften up for Uber? Or is it just the WAV that has your knickers twisted, which as explained several times, in much greater detail than you deserve with your attitude, are government policy. Which may or may not change in 2020.

Spook_ie

usernamegoes wrote: »

Those of us not affected by having skin-in-the-game or warped ideology are advocating for a ride-sharing regulation that would have appropriate regulation that is not an artificial barrier to entry to appease a taxi lobby and keep a cushy number in the regulator's office.

I'll ask you the same questions I asked makenbake

Let's try a different approach.

Does a driver require commercial or hire and reward insurance. Yes/No

Does a vehicle require a current NCT at all times. Yes/No

Does a vehicle require registering to ensure it meets with size limits. Yes/No

Does a vehicle require perodic inspection to ensure it's fit for purpose and not modified in a way contarary to its registration to carry passengers. Yes/No

Does a vehicle require mandatory signage to identify it to people easily Yes/No

Does a driver require a background check. Yes/No

If a background check is required should it include driving offences. Yes/No

Should a driver be limited to areas specific to where he knows or lives and works Yes/No

Should a driver be able to work anywhere because of SatNav Yes/No

Should a driver undergo peridocical medicals/ health checks. Yes/No

Should a driver be required to register with revenue that they have a 2nd source of income Yes/No

Should a driver be required to be tax compliant at all times. Yes/No

Should a driver have to notify a regulatory body of the vehicle they are driving Yes/No

They'll do to be going on with I'm sure there's probably more that deeper reflection will throw up.

No one has argued for under-insurance either. Can you describe what kind of under-insurance you think there my be by allowing ride-sharing and we can address that.

Under insurance would be any insurance that didn't fully cover the driver of a vehicle for "Hire and Reward" as it's known in Ireland.

makeorbrake

Spook_ie wrote: »

Regulations are nothing to do with taxiing, majority of regulations are for use of any SPSV in Ireland

Eh, you can come at it which ever way you want. I'm calling for separate regulation for ride sharing. You don't like that - but that doesn't mean to say that it can't be done.

Spook_ie wrote: »

so which ones do you think we should soften up for Uber?

I have not called for anything to be 'softened up'. I've called for pro-innovation regulation for ride sharing (you'll note that's not specifically in support of any one platform or company).

Spook_ie wrote: »

Or is it just the WAV that has your knickers twisted, which as explained several times, in much greater detail than you deserve with your attitude, are government policy. Which may or may not change in 2020.

'With my attitude'..:D....temper, temper!

It's very simple really. The regulator needs to look and see what is preventing the enabling of ride sharing in Ireland and fix that. Clearly, the WAV/licensing thing is first and foremost.

Spook_ie

makeorbrake wrote: »

Eh, you can come at it which ever way you want. I'm calling for separate regulation for ride sharing. You don't like that - but that doesn't mean to say that it can't be done.

So you want seperate regulation for ridesharing but still have no input as to what the regulations might or might not encompass, I really do believe it's pointless trying to ask you anything of meaning.

I have not called for anything to be 'softened up'. I've called for pro-innovation regulation for ride sharing (you'll note that's not specifically in support of any one platform or company).

If it's not softening up of the current SPSV regulations that you want, then try fleshing out your idea of ride sharing regulation, which you have been asked about several times, but continue to give disparaging non answers, along the lines of "doesn't mean to say that it can't be done."

'With my attitude'..:D....temper, temper!

Not exactly temper, more frustration at your inability to give an answer to a question you yourself keep putting forward, someone must fix it, well the regulator has fixed it "No Uber unless it fits within SPSV regulations" The only thing that the regulator can do is bring in an entirely new class of SPSV and regulate for that, but don't expect the SPSV regulations to vary much from what they already are. Lessening the regulations leaves the NTA and Government open to being sued by any passenger/driver being injured, wronged, attacked or whatever.

It's very simple really. The regulator needs to look and see what is preventing the enabling of ride sharing in Ireland and fix that. Clearly, the WAV/licensing thing is first and foremost.

There is NOTHING in the regulations preventing ridesharing, unless you tell us which regulations you think are preventing it then your argument is vexatious and non existent,
Once again I refer you to previous answers about WAVs and suggest you decide what the argument is if they allow more licenses after 2020, as the anti WAV argument is a non runner given the governments committal to supporting the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

makeorbrake

kippy wrote: »

This is the issue, Taxi'ng and "ride sharing" are ultimately the same thing. Zero difference.

That's your opinion. You're entitled to it -but it isn't mine and it's not going to be.

kippy wrote: »

Indeed, the poster is happy to take on board these experts opinion but wasn't eager to take on board the experts that stated that Uber was a transport company.

That cuts both ways albeit there's a distinction. I acknowledged the ECJ ruling - but I also pointed out that as a global company and their own position - that's not their take and that's not the belief in some other jurisdictions.
That's the difference.

Spook_ie wrote: »

So you want seperate regulation for ridesharing but still have no input as to what the regulations might or might not encompass, I really do believe it's pointless trying to ask you anything of meaning.

I have provided input. What it is pointless trying to do is to have me state what you want. I can't do that as I fundamentally don't agree with you. That's not going to change. The sane thing here is to agree to disagree...or you can compell me to keep coming back and responding to the same claims that you make with my same position. Up to you.

Spook_ie wrote: »

If it's not softening up of the current SPSV regulations that you want, then try fleshing out your idea of ride sharing regulation, which you have been asked about several times, but continue to give disparaging non answers, along the lines of "doesn't mean to say that it can't be done."

I didn't suggest 'softening up' anything. I suggested separate regulation and a move away from the protectionism that's currently going on. As regards input, I've provided it - you just chose to ignore it.'

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not exactly temper, more frustration at your inability to give an answer to a question you yourself keep putting forward, someone must fix it, well the regulator has fixed it "No Uber unless it fits within SPSV regulations" The only thing that the regulator can do is bring in an entirely new class of SPSV and regulate for that, but don't expect the SPSV regulations to vary much from what they already are. Lessening the regulations leaves the NTA and Government open to being sued by any passenger/driver being injured, wronged, attacked or whatever.

You keep trying to suggest that regulation is a straightjacket. A regulator with the will could set in train fit for purpose regulation for ridesharing if they wanted. Simple as that.

Spook_ie wrote: »

There is NOTHING in the regulations preventing ridesharing, unless you tell us which regulations you think are preventing it then your argument is vexatious and non existent,
Once again I refer you to previous answers about WAVs and suggest you decide what the argument is if they allow more licenses after 2020, as the anti WAV argument is a non runner given the governments committal to supporting the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Yet we don't have a market that has been ride sharing enabled - as it's nonexistent on the streets of ireland - yet it exists in other jurisdictions. Clearly, the regulator is doing something wrong - and no, that doesn't mean no regulation, it doesn't mean watering down or softening up anything. It means taking a pro-innovative approach. By the way, if - through the enablement of ride sharing - its such a success as taxi'ing drops off - i'm fine with that. That would be the case of industrial change. I'm not in favour of propping up fellas for the sake of it - which is at the heart of the naysayers argument here.

As regards the WAV, there is no reason that both ride sharing and WAV availability can't both be tackled (and yes, before anyone suggests otherwise, I have suggested ways in which that could be tackled).

n97 mini

Spook_ie wrote: »

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

Uber self insures.

All drivers are registered and vetted by Uber to a higher standard than the taxi licencing authorities.

By its very nature it's not possible to flag down a bogus driver or one with a criminal record. Neither is true for taxis.

usernamegoes

kippy wrote: »

This is the issue, Taxi'ng and "ride sharing" are ultimately the same thing. Zero difference.

By your logic I suppose taxing and hackneys are the same thing and don't require separate regulation. It's a view, not mine, but it's a view nonetheless.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Under insurance would be any insurance that didn't fully cover the driver of a vehicle for "Hire and Reward" as it's known in Ireland.

Require drivers to have adequate insurance like other countries have. Require all dispatch operators to full cover the trips taken if the driver's insurance fails for whatever reason as Uber do now. Who cover the costs if my taxis insurance isnt paid or otherwise invalidated?


Does a driver require commercial or hire and reward insurance. Yes/No
Yes. As in other countries a market will develop. Extra protection by having the dispatch operator provide supplemental and backup insurance as Uber do. Do 8202020?

Does a vehicle require a current NCT at all times. Yes/No
Yes, like any other car.

Does a vehicle require registering to ensure it meets with size limits. Yes/No
No

Does a vehicle require perodic inspection to ensure it's fit for purpose and not modified in a way contarary to its registration to carry passengers. Yes/No
Initial thoughts would be no. But I do understand Uber do require these kind of checks.

Does a vehicle require mandatory signage to identify it to people easily Yes/No
No.

Does a driver require a background check. Yes/No
Yes.

If a background check is required should it include driving offences. Yes/No
Yes

Should a driver be limited to areas specific to where he knows or lives and works Yes/No
No

Should a driver be able to work anywhere because of SatNav Yes/No
Yes

Should a driver undergo peridocical medicals/ health checks. Yes/No
No.

Should a driver be required to register with revenue that they have a 2nd source of income Yes/No
Yes.

Should a driver be required to be tax compliant at all times. Yes/No
Like every other person, people should be required to be tax compliant at all times.

Should a driver have to notify a regulatory body of the vehicle they are driving Yes/No
Not the vehicle. I wouldn't say so unless there's an important reason I'm not aware of. The driver should require a licence at minimal cost and effort they can apply for online.

If ye lads put as much effort into lobbying the regulator as ye do ranting about the perceived injustices, conspiracy theories and general wacko-jacko stuff, then who knows what ye might achieve for other transport companies like Uber, Lyft etc

As it stands rehashing the same wild fantasies over and over again here will do little. The regs are what they are and unlikely to be changed to allow a drop in the minimum standards to facilitate some multinational transport companies like Uber, Lyft etc

But do carry on

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

If ye lads put as much effort into lobbying the regulator as ye do ranting about the perceived injustices, conspiracy theories and general wacko-jacko stuff, then who knows what ye might achieve for other transport companies like Uber, Lyft etc

As it stands rehashing the same wild fantasies over and over again here will do little. The regs are what they are and unlikely to be changed to allow to facilitate a drop in the minimum standards to facilitate some multinational transport companies like Uber, Lyft etc

But do carry on

You'll need to replace a couple of panes of glass in that glasshouse you ping that nonsense from.

makeorbrake

makeorbrake wrote: »

You'll need to replace a couple of panes of glass in that glasshouse you ping that nonsense from.

Keep calm and carry on

Spook_ie

usernamegoes wrote: »

By your logic I suppose taxing and hackneys are the same thing and don't require separate regulation. It's a view, not mine, but it's a view nonetheless.



Require drivers to have adequate insurance like other countries have. Require all dispatch operators to full cover the trips taken if the driver's insurance fails for whatever reason as Uber do now. Who cover the costs if my taxis insurance isnt paid or otherwise invalidated?

MyTaxi doesn't run any cars, like Uber it connects drivers to users, the licensing of the drivers requires them to have full hire and reward insurance. Some companies such as CityCabs do have some cars that they rent out and each one must be insured along the same lines.

Does a driver require commercial or hire and reward insurance. Yes/No
Yes. As in other countries a market will develop. Extra protection by having the dispatch operator provide supplemental and backup insurance as Uber do. Do 8202020?

Same as the answer above, 8202020 are owned by Ebbs who also owns CityCabs. Therefore there is no requirement for supplemental insurance.

Does a vehicle require a current NCT at all times. Yes/No
Yes, like any other car.

All SPSVs in Ireland require an NCT yearly from their first birthday, only exception is less than 3 months old and less than 3000Km should Uber vehicles require the same? If not why not?

Does a vehicle require registering to ensure it meets with size limits. Yes/No
No

Is there any reason why Uber vehicles shouldn't be required to take a folded standard wheelchair, basic requirement for SPSVs.

Does a vehicle require perodic inspection to ensure it's fit for purpose and not modified in a way contarary to its registration to carry passengers. Yes/No
Initial thoughts would be no. But I do understand Uber do require these kind of checks.

SPSVs are required to undergo these checks annually and during random roadside checks, is a company (primarily concerned with profit ) a suitable office for the governance of this or should it be, like the NCT an external agency?

Does a vehicle require mandatory signage to identify it to people easily Yes/No
No.

As is the case with Hackneys and Limousines in Ireland, in fact any external signage is an offence, however, small owner advertising max 10,000 sq. mm is permitted, i would assume that an Uber/Lyft sticker would be acceptable by the NTA.

Does a driver require a background check. Yes/No
Yes.

As does any driver licensed by NTA

If a background check is required should it include driving offences. Yes/No
Yes

Again standard requirement, nowI would assume that having passed these requirements then a certificate or license if you will should be provided, does a cost of €1 a week seem excessive? That is the cost as it stands for an SPSV license

Should a driver be limited to areas specific to where he knows or lives and works Yes/No
No

I tend to agree with that, however, how do you ensure that all your Uber/Lyft drivers don't attend lucrative festivals etc to the detriment of traffic guidance etc.

Should a driver be able to work anywhere because of SatNav Yes/No
Yes

As above I don't see any reason why not, except for the obvious drawback of thousands of vehicles attending Oxygen, Galway races etc. to make a quick buck.

Should a driver undergo peridocical medicals/ health checks. Yes/No
No.

Interesting, not a requirement at the moment, unless a GP advises you to cease driving, however, I myself believe that a mandatory eyesight test should be required at least every 3-5 years

Should a driver be required to register with revenue that they have a 2nd source of income Yes/No
Yes.

Well that should put some people off at least, the fact of having to fill out a form 11 each year with a P+L account, though if Uber/lyft wanted to they could easily provide a P60 type document giving earnings for a year.

Should a driver be required to be tax compliant at all times. Yes/No
Like every other person, people should be required to be tax compliant at all times.

So as with SPSV licensing I assume you'd have no problem with their license being suspended, however that does require Uber/Lyft to liaise with revenue in stopping a driver receiving requests. Might be doable but a lot would depend on Uber/Lyft doing their bit.

Should a driver have to notify a regulatory body of the vehicle they are driving Yes/No
Not the vehicle. I wouldn't say so unless there's an important reason I'm not aware of.

unless you know the vehicle has been passed for its NCT, Insurance etc. how would you prevent a person whose own car had broken down borrowing a mates uninsured, untested vehicle? If the vehicle has been licensed and insurance checked etc. simple matter of extending the driver check app to cover it.

The driver should require a licence at minimal cost and effort they can apply for online.

I actually agree, there is no real need for a knowledge test with a satNav system, however, there are an awful lot of people on the roads using SatNavs that screw up by not paying attention to the real world around them, in fact the RSA is now considering using a SatNav as part of the driving test. Perhaps all people using a SatNav rather than their own knowledge should be subject to this section of a driving license test. Especially those that are driving people around for payment.

usernamegoes

Spook_ie wrote: »

MyTaxi doesn't run any cars, like Uber it connects drivers to users, the licensing of the drivers requires them to have full hire and reward insurance. Some companies such as CityCabs do have some cars that they rent out and each one must be insured along the same lines.

I suppose Uber is over-insured vis-a-vis taxis. I guess that's another innovation they have brought to the market.

Same as the answer above, 8202020 are owned by Ebbs who also owns CityCabs. Therefore there is no requirement for supplemental insurance.

Yeah, I suppose Uber just does things better in terms of insurance and safety. Much lower risk of not being covered by insurance when using Uber over taxis.

All SPSVs in Ireland require an NCT yearly from their first birthday, only exception is less than 3 months old and less than 3000Km should Uber vehicles require the same? If not why not?

No. Makes no sense. Is there evidence that a brand new car is less safe when someone else is driving me around than if I drive myself?

Is there any reason why Uber vehicles shouldn't be required to take a folded standard wheelchair, basic requirement for SPSVs.

Yeah, not all cars need to take a wheelchair. Relative to the number of wheelchair users requiring 100 per cent to fit wheelchairs and not all wheelchairs for that matter seems OTT never mind the WAV issue as already discussed.

SPSVs are required to undergo these checks annually and during random roadside checks, is a company (primarily concerned with profit ) a suitable office for the governance of this or should it be, like the NCT an external agency?

Uber have a much greater incentive to ensure their are no incidents with the vehicles that use their platform. Bad press = bad business.

As is the case with Hackneys and Limousines in Ireland, in fact any external signage is an offence, however, small owner advertising max 10,000 sq. mm is permitted, i would assume that an Uber/Lyft sticker would be acceptable by the NTA.

I don't think there should be a requirement to have signage or a prohibition on having signage.

As does any driver licensed by NTA

Great.

Again standard requirement, nowI would assume that having passed these requirements then a certificate or license if you will should be provided, does a cost of €1 a week seem excessive? That is the cost as it stands for an SPSV license

What's the fee for?

I tend to agree with that, however, how do you ensure that all your Uber/Lyft drivers don't attend lucrative festivals etc to the detriment of traffic guidance etc.

I let the Garda look after traffic management.

As above I don't see any reason why not, except for the obvious drawback of thousands of vehicles attending Oxygen, Galway races etc. to make a quick buck.

Same answer

Interesting, not a requirement at the moment, unless a GP advises you to cease driving, however, I myself believe that a mandatory eyesight test should be required at least every 3-5 years

Anyone told to cease driving should do so including driving for reward.

Well that should put some people off at least, the fact of having to fill out a form 11 each year with a P+L account, though if Uber/lyft wanted to they could easily provide a P60 type document giving earnings for a year.

I am no expert on tax rules, but I assume antyone getting extra income needs to register with the revenue. It should be the same.

So as with SPSV licensing I assume you'd have no problem with their license being suspended, however that does require Uber/Lyft to liaise with revenue in stopping a driver receiving requests. Might be doable but a lot would depend on Uber/Lyft doing their bit.

Not sure. AirBnB were forced to share tax information.

unless you know the vehicle has been passed for its NCT, Insurance etc. how would you prevent a person whose own car had broken down borrowing a mates uninsured, untested vehicle? If the vehicle has been licensed and insurance checked etc. simple matter of extending the driver check app to cover it.

Well Uber would insure the trip if they were allowed to operate. How do you stop taxis doing this?

I actually agree, there is no real need for a knowledge test with a satNav system, however, there are an awful lot of people on the roads using SatNavs that screw up by not paying attention to the real world around them, in fact the RSA is now considering using a SatNav as part of the driving test. Perhaps all people using a SatNav rather than their own knowledge should be subject to this section of a driving license test. Especially those that are driving people around for payment.

The UK driving test requires you to follow a sat nav.

n97 mini

Spook_ie wrote: »

unless you know the vehicle has been passed for its NCT, Insurance etc. how would you prevent a person whose own car had broken down borrowing a mates uninsured, untested vehicle?

The app shows the car make, model, colour, reg plate and a photo of the driver. If they don't match when the lift arrives, don't take it and report via the app.

Spook_ie

usernamegoes wrote: »

I suppose Uber is over-insured vis-a-vis taxis. I guess that's another innovation they have brought to the market.



Yeah, I suppose Uber just does things better in terms of insurance and safety. Much lower risk of not being covered by insurance when using Uber over taxis.

You can't over insure for an item, that would be fraud, the insurance companies share the liability. Not sure how Ubers bare minimum of $1,000,000 would fare when faced with potential payouts of €2,600,000

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/electrician-who-suffered-brain-injury-settles-accident-case-for-2-6m-38299981.html

No. Makes no sense. Is there evidence that a brand new car is less safe when someone else is driving me around than if I drive myself?

We're going to have to disagree there then, how many faulty cars do you see on the road already. Even the 1 year rule for SPSVs doesn't take all the faulty cars off the road, instead people tend to wait for the NCT to fail them. I would like much stricter enforcement on all cars especially lighting faults and that includes the 191 reg from last night

Yeah, not all cars need to take a wheelchair. Relative to the number of wheelchair users requiring 100 per cent to fit wheelchairs and not all wheelchairs for that matter seems OTT never mind the WAV issue as already discussed.

Again we're going to disagree then, because Ireland has signed up to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and as such if a car is taking paying passengers then it should be fit for the person with disabilities as well, not all disabilities require people to travel in wheelchairs but may need wheelchairs when going around shops etc.

Uber have a much greater incentive to ensure their are no incidents with the vehicles that use their platform. Bad press = bad business.

And why did Uber lose their license in London, because they were playing fast and loose with allegations of sexual assault etc. Far better for an unconnected office like the NTA rather than profit driven companies.

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/uber-allowed-sex-attack-driver-to-strike-again-by-not-reporting-incident-36027625.html

I don't think there should be a requirement to have signage or a prohibition on having signage.

Again that would depend on where about on the spectrum of SPSVs you placed Uber, nearer to taxi service the more requirement for signage, nearer to limousine then the less signage.

Great.

Well that's settled then

What's the fee for?

To provide the shiny ID that provides the passenger with another sign of confidence that the driver has passed background checks etc. Or do you think the app on a phone is all that's needed, given Ubers reliance on self checking I wouldn't imagine the NTA or Gardai letting that one go.

I let the Garda look after traffic management.

Same answer

Yeah I sometime wish I could drive up to the Galway festivals and cop a few fares too, but hey I follow the regulations, if they change them maybe I'll get to Galway and Cork yet

Anyone told to cease driving should do so including driving for reward.

Yet you don't advocate for medical testing but self certification, again we'll have to disagree, as I said there should be a minimum of an eye test every 2-5 years.

I am no expert on tax rules, but I assume anyone getting extra income needs to register with the revenue. It should be the same.

Great we agree on avoiding tax evasion by ride share drivers then and requiring them to have tax clearance

Not sure. AirBnB were forced to share tax information.

Well someone has to ensure that the taxman knows that someone has a second income, normally it would be the licensing authority, in the case of Uber etc. unless it's legislated for them to hand over the information ( bear in mind they are a US company and pay drivers through a shell company )that may not be achievable. Another good reason for registrations of vehicles and drivers to remain "in country" with the NTA

Well Uber would insure the trip if they were allowed to operate. How do you stop taxis doing this?

Don't think Uber insurance would cover any kind of fraudulent use of a vehicle, SPSV's in Ireland are required to have Hire and Reward insurance and if the insurance is voided or cancelled the insurer is obligated to inform the NTA who then inform the Gardai and more than likely activate a sting to catch the driver working without insurance. Though a good solicitor might well save the day

http://www.mayonews.ie/news/32942-solicitor-claims-nta-inciting-taxi-operators-to-commit-crimes

The UK driving test requires you to follow a sat nav.

Yeah we should bring one in here and I also think that all SPSV drivers should probably do it retrospectively

Spook_ie

n97 mini wrote: »

The app shows the car make, model, colour, reg plate and a photo of the driver. If they don't match when the lift arrives, don't take it and report via the app.

Yeah that works fine...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p0jbS1Bn2s

makeorbrake

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yeah that works fine...

Anyone can find a few outlier cases. There have been plenty of assaults carried out by actual taxi drivers. Other than that, how far do you want to take society?

People have to have personal responsibility and in this instance that includes checking the license plate on the car. No doubt you'll come back and say that's not how it works in the real world, people are drunk, etc. Life is full of choices and everyone has a choice to be personally responsible.

Spook_ie

makeorbrake wrote: »

Anyone can find a few outlier cases. There have been plenty of assaults carried out by actual taxi drivers. Other than that, how far do you want to take society?

People have to have personal responsibility and in this instance that includes checking the license plate on the car. No doubt you'll come back and say that's not how it works in the real world, people are drunk, etc. Life is full of choices and everyone has a choice to be personally responsible.

You had your chance to join in with some suggestions, forgive me if I now put you on ignore.

makeorbrake

Spook_ie wrote: »

You had your chance to join in with some suggestions, forgive me if I now put you on ignore.

This is an open public discussion. If you'd like to have a private one with others, I guess the PM feature will come in handy. Perhaps they hire out echo chambers somewhere...

usernamegoes

Spook_ie wrote: »

You can't over insure for an item, that would be fraud, the insurance companies share the liability. Not sure how Ubers bare minimum of $1,000,000 would fare when faced with potential payouts of €2,600,000

You can't claim for more than the damage incurred or your insurable-interest. You can have supplemental insurance. Over-insured is common phrase in insurance circles look it up.

I suppose rare claims over 1m wouldn't be covered unless the dispatch operator was required to have higher coverage but it's better than getting nothing from an uninsured taxi.

I will respond on the rest tomorrow or when I get a chance.

n97 mini

makeorbrake wrote: »

Anyone can find a few outlier cases. There have been plenty of assaults carried out by actual taxi drivers. Other than that, how far do you want to take society?

They're not outliers though, as no Uber drivers were involved in assaults.

AndrewJRenko

n97 mini wrote: »

They're not outliers though, as no Uber drivers were involved in assaults.

Really?



https://www.atchisontransport.com/blog/reported-list-of-incidents-involving-uber-and-lyft/

n97 mini

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Really?



https://www.atchisontransport.com/blog/reported-list-of-incidents-involving-uber-and-lyft/

In the link given above. People were masquerading as official drivers.

It'd be interesting if some ride-sharing company kept a similar blog about taxis though.

For started criminals are allowed drive taxis, if their tax affairs are up to date.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2001/0605/15749-monk/

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

In the link given above. People were masquerading as official drivers.

which is why we have the regulations we do in ireland. to try and prevent people pretending to be a psv operator. we don't simply leave it to the whims of a private company or person.
anyway people pretending to be uber drivers aren't the only things in that link. the link shows ultimately that your original claim is bogus.

AndrewJRenko

n97 mini wrote: »

In the link given above. People were masquerading as official drivers.

Not true.


Uber driver; https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1467497/unconscious-uber-driver-woman-dragged-down-street-after-driver-demanded-cash-for-her-phone/


Uber driver; https://www.projectq.us/atlanta/uber_driver_threatens_gay_atlanta_men_with_gun?gid=17890


Uber driver: https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/woman-says-angry-uber-driver-ran-her-over/377645290


Do I need to keep going?

n97 mini

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Not true.


Uber driver; https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1467497/unconscious-uber-driver-woman-dragged-down-street-after-driver-demanded-cash-for-her-phone/


Uber driver; https://www.projectq.us/atlanta/uber_driver_threatens_gay_atlanta_men_with_gun?gid=17890


Uber driver: https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/woman-says-angry-uber-driver-ran-her-over/377645290


Do I need to keep going?

No your link to a taxi company's blog was fine. Thwe one I was responding to was with the YouTube video, and you responded to my reply to that.

n97 mini

end of the road wrote: »

which is why we have the regulations we do in ireland. to try and prevent people pretending to be a psv operator. we don't simply leave it to the whims of a private company or person.
anyway people pretending to be uber drivers aren't the only things in that link. the link shows ultimately that your original claim is bogus.

Try being the active word. Although we don't try very hard. Convicted criminals can drive taxis, we seemingly have no end of people driving on other people's licences, and plenty of reported cases of people sticking a taxi sign on their roof and picking up people on the street (In Belfast you can't hail a taxi on the street, for that very reason.) All those are weaknesses in the current system.

In response to your second paragraph, you didn't watch the video.

AndrewJRenko

n97 mini wrote: »

No your link to a taxi company's blog was fine. Thwe one I was responding to was with the YouTube video, and you responded to my reply to that.

Gotcha. So we definitely do have cases of assaults by Uber and Lyft drivers on record, despite their supposedly excellent vetting system and apparently foolproof rating system.


It's interesting to hear from you that there is a problem with people impersonating Uber drivers too. I thought that couldn't happen, given the amazingly innovative app that gives all the details to the customer?

n97 mini wrote: »

we seemingly have no end of people driving on other people's licences, and plenty of reported cases of people sticking a taxi sign on their roof and picking up people on the street

Really? How/when/where is this happening? Have we any reliable reports? There are very occasional issues picked up by the regulator when they do their enforcement operations, but these are few and far between. If you're aware of 'no end of people driving on other people's licences' you should really be reporting this to the authorities urgenty.

n97 mini

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Gotcha. So we definitely do have cases of assaults by Uber and Lyft drivers on record, despite their supposedly excellent vetting system and apparently foolproof rating system.

No system is perfect, for obvious reasons. That's human nature. There will always be chancers. Overall tho, Uber vetting is more robust than the taxi regulator's. No criminal records for example.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's interesting to hear from you that there is a problem with people impersonating Uber drivers too. I thought that couldn't happen, given the amazingly innovative app that gives all the details to the customer?

In IT we have what's called a PEBKAC error. Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair. If people don't use the information given to them correctly.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Really? How/when/where is this happening? Have we any reliable reports? There are very occasional issues picked up by the regulator when they do their enforcement operations, but these are few and far between. If you're aware of 'no end of people driving on other people's licences' you should really be reporting this to the authorities urgenty.

I'm only going on media reports as I don't use taxis anymore, too many bad experiences! Not much for me to report I'm afraid! Google bogus taxi drivers, plenty of results.

Spook_ie

n97 mini wrote: »

Try being the active word. Although we don't try very hard. Convicted criminals can drive taxis, we seemingly have no end of people driving on other people's licences, and plenty of reported cases of people sticking a taxi sign on their roof and picking up people on the street (In Belfast you can't hail a taxi on the street, for that very reason.) All those are weaknesses in the current system.

In response to your second paragraph, you didn't watch the video.

Convicted criminals of certain offences can no longer apply for SPSV driver licenses, however, the Irish Constitution protects peoples right to work and there is the concept of not being punished twice for a crime, are you suggesting we should tear up or ignore the constitution or that someone convicted of some offences not against the person be barred from driving a taxi?


http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/37/section/30/enacted/en/html