Uber

n97 mini

Spook_ie wrote: »

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

I'm saying if you have a criminal record you can't drive for Uber, but you can drive a taxi.

Maybe that's unfair on criminals?

Spook_ie

Uber background check policy

At least one-year U.S. licensing history (if under 23 years old, must have at least three years licensing history).
A valid driver’s license and Motor Vehicle Record (MVR)
No major moving violations, such as DUIs or reckless driving, within the last seven years.
No more than three minor moving violations in the past three years, such as speeding tickets or failure to obey traffic laws.
A criminal record that does not include a conviction for a felony, violent crime, or sexual offense within the last seven years.

So you could still be driven around by a convicted criminal on Uber as long as they have been "clean" or not caught for 7 years.

Stephen15

If you think the situation is bad with forgein national taxi drivers atm my bet Uber will be ten times worse

usernamegoes

Spook_ie wrote: »

Uber background check policy



So you could still be driven around by a convicted criminal on Uber as long as they have been "clean" or not caught for 7 years.

Seems fair to me for non-serious crimes. Would you rather crucify them?

What's the rule with an taxi licence from the NTA?

Stephen15 wrote: »

If you think the situation is bad with forgein national taxi drivers atm my bet Uber will be ten times worse

What's the situation with the "foreign nationals?" Are you a taxi driver?

Spook_ie

usernamegoes wrote: »

Seems fair to me for non-serious crimes. Would you rather crucify them?

What's the rule with an taxi licence from the NTA?



What's the situation with the "foreign nationals?" Are you a taxi driver?

Pretty much the same, it was n97 who reckons that Ireland has loads of convicted taxi drivers and Uber doesn't.

makeorbrake

So long story short, the naysayers say better standards in terms of drivers and at worst there would be no difference. It's another non-point put to bed.

AndrewJRenko

makeorbrake wrote: »

So long story short, the naysayers say better standards in terms of drivers and at worst there would be no difference. It's another non-point put to bed.

Uber have a vested interest in getting more and more drivers on the road. The NTA have no vested interest. I know who I'd prefer to be vetting drivers.



And again, there's no problem with Uber applying higher standards of their own, once they comply with the standard requirements that apply to everyone.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Look up "innovation" and the "sharing economy".

I looked up 'sharing economy' and found this - eight people sharing a studio apartment in Citywest using bunk beds in the living room.

https://twitter.com/RentalProperty8/status/1149342797205528576




All part of the American dream, eh?

makeorbrake

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Uber have a vested interest in getting more and more drivers on the road. The NTA have no vested interest. I know who I'd prefer to be vetting drivers.

They've been shown to implement higher standards (something they also have a vested interest in).

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And again, there's no problem with Uber applying higher standards of their own, once they comply with the standard requirements that apply to everyone

Have they broken any regulation here?

Yeah, in terms of vetting, I have not seen any argument from anyone in terms of implementing the very same vetting - so what gives?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I looked up 'sharing economy' and found this - eight people sharing a studio apartment in Citywest using bunk beds in the living room.
All part of the American dream, eh?

You really are something. So now you have an issue with Airbnb. Airbnb is used the world over - and as a concept it's excellent. The platform is exactly that - a platform. What you are referring to here is symptomatic of Dublin's housing crisis.

That crisis has been brought about by the negligence of irish politicians and civil servants (sound familiar?). Just so that there's clarity - they're IRISH. This has nothing to do with the yanks - it has nothing to do with airbnb.

The greater 'point' (feeble as it is) has to do with your own ideological hang ups. There's plenty wrong in the U.S. - but there are also things that you have to give them credit for. Amongst those is a pro business environment and one that encourages innovation. That's why we have this type of scenario.

I have not used airbnb that much - they tend to offer higher quality properties and experiences - and with that, prices. However, they also offer the opportunity to meet people where-ever you're travelling and get a far better insight into a place and a different experience by comparison to a hotel.

There is an extensive feedback system so it's unlikely that someone that rents a property or room in a property doesn't know what they're getting into. In the case of these that you list, it's unfortunate but that seems to be what they were prepared to take on. That's got nothing to do with Airbnb and everything to do with mismanagement politically and administratively in Ireland.

As regards the Sharing Economy generally, isn't it amazing that your full review only threw up negativity (that had nothing to do with those that enabled that type of sharing economy)? Here are some of the areas that the Sharing Economy is coming into play:

- Peer to Peer lending
- Car Sharing
- Ride Sharing
- Crowdfunding
- Co-working
- Freelancing


You lack all credibility in trying to diss an innovative, progressive approach just to try and clamber together some wayward argument.

Guy:Incognito

Would "ride sharing" not be that Im going to wexford in the morning so an app would allow other people going to wexford to carpool with me.

Uber isnt that, its an unlicensed taxi. You tell them where you want to go and they take you, then they look for another fare. Thats a taxi. Not sharing a ride.

Bit like Irish illegal immigrants in America being called undocumented.

makeorbrake

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Would "ride sharing" not be that Im going to wexford in the morning so an app would allow other people going to wexford to carpool with me.

Uber isnt that, its an unlicensed taxi. You tell them where you want to go and they take you, then they look for another fare. Thats a taxi. Not sharing a ride.

Bit like Irish illegal immigrants in America being called undocumented.

The most effective use is application in the manner you describe, together with short term availability i.e. someone who wants to go out to work for a couple of hours - using a car that that is otherwise sitting idle and forms part of the country's existing car fleet.

If there's a willingness (which it appears there isnt), that can all be regulated in. Meanwhile, 'discussion' here amongst naysayers doesn't even entertain that in any way shape or form.

LuckyLloyd

For this thread to be progressed, really need "ride sharing" and taxiing to be differentiated in some sort of convincing way beyond simply insisting it's different because "innovation".

makeorbrake

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

For this thread to be progressed, really need "ride sharing" and taxiing to be differentiated in some sort of convincing way beyond simply insisting it's different because "innovation".

It depends on what you mean by 'progress'. Different people would use different metrics. To me it would be a concession that at least ridesharing as described in the last couple of posts has merit. Without that from the naysayers, the discussion will remain entrenched.

As regards your 'innovation' jibe, it's been articulated at length as to what it is and to why it is (or can be) a positive force. Unless of course you choose to ignore those elements (which seems to be the case).

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

For this thread to be progressed, really need "ride sharing" and taxiing to be differentiated in some sort of convincing way beyond simply insisting it's different because "innovation".

Agreed, this thread has basically become makeorbrake's attempt to always have the last word.

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

Agreed, this thread has basically become makeorbrake's attempt to always have the last word.

If you have a complaint, I'd respectfully suggest you bring it to a Mod. The reality is that there have been attempts to browbeat me into submission. That's not something I've ever rolled over for - quite the opposite.

LuckyLloyd

makeorbrake wrote: »

It depends on what you mean by 'progress'. Different people would use different metrics. To me it would be a concession that at least ridesharing as described in the last couple of posts has merit. Without that from the naysayers, the discussion will remain entrenched.

As regards your 'innovation' jibe, it's been articulated at length as to what it is and to why it is (or can be) a positive force. Unless of course you choose to ignore those elements (which seems to be the case).

Blah blah

What's the difference between ridesharing and taxiing again?

makeorbrake

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Blah blah

Says everything about the attitude you bring to your engagement on this discussion. Right back at you.

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

What's the difference between ridesharing and taxiing again?

Hmm, let's see, one let's you call for a ride using an app, pay for the ride using the app, and can be waved down on the street.

The other can only do 2 of those things

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

Hmm, let's see, one let's you call for a ride using an app, pay for the ride using the app, and can be waved down on the street.

The other can only do 2 of those things

Someone working a couple of hours with their existing vehicle that would otherwise be parked up or someone switching on the app as they drive in to work or where-ever else is not taxi-ing.

Guy:Incognito

makeorbrake wrote: »

Someone working a couple of hours with their existing vehicle that would otherwise be parked up or someone switching on the app as they drive in to work or where-ever else is not taxi-ing.

If someone with a taxi plate did the same thing theyd still be called a taxi though.

end of the road

makeorbrake wrote: »

Someone working a couple of hours with their existing vehicle that would otherwise be parked up or someone switching on the app as they drive in to work or where-ever else is not taxi-ing.

it is . it is taking a passenger from a to b for reward, a fare in return.
part time drivers already exist within the psv industry. people who simply go out for a couple of hours and come home again.
so again, absolutely nothing different here that requires different regulation.

Spook_ie

usernamegoes wrote: »

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.

afaik ALL insurance policies for motoring in Ireland cover unlimited personal liability for injury and death.

Axa:- We will pay all amounts you legally have to pay
as a result of negligently using your car and any
trailer or caravan being towed by it, if you cause
the accidental death of, or bodily injury to, any
person

Allianz:-We will indemnify the person(s) insured
for legal liability (and for the related costs
and expenses) for damages in respect of:
death or bodily injury or disease to any
person, and / or damage to property
arising from the use of Your Car specified
in the current Certificate of Motor
Insurance or trailer used in connection
therewith for the same use as specified in
the current Certificate of Motor Insurance,

They would be two of the biggest underwriters of Hire and Reward insurance, giving unlimited injury and death liability and €30,000,000 damages liability, kind of knocks Ubers coverage into the corner.

Primarily Uber and others insurance is a top up insurance to cover limited policies that are popular in the States and some other countries where you pay for your own decided risk level and keep your fingers crossed the costs etc. don't exceed it.
https://www.thebalance.com/understanding-minimum-car-insurance-requirements-2645473

Minimum coverage that is shockingly low when you look at the costs of medical treatment etc. in the States
i.e

New York
$25,000 bodily injury liability per person
$50,000 bodily injury liability per accident
$50,000 liability for death per person
$100,000 liability for death per accident
$10,000 property damage liability per accident
$50,000 personal injury protection
$25,000 uninsured motorist coverage per person
$50,000 uninsured motorist coverage per accident

Better hope you don't kill more than 2 at a time!

As regards uninsured taxis hopefully the Gardai and NTA react quickly enough to take action when notified by the insurance companies of cancelled policies, but there is still the Uninsured Drivers Fund to cover something of the aftermath of an accident.

makeorbrake

end of the road wrote: »

it is . it is taking a passenger from a to b for reward, a fare in return.
part time drivers already exist within the psv industry. people who simply go out for a couple of hours and come home again.
so again, absolutely nothing different here that requires different regulation.

There's everything different about it unless you want to stay stuck in the past and take the country with you (most likely that's the idea for personal gain or for wayward ideological reasons).

If it wasn't different, how would this have ever even have become a thing on a global scale. The ability to harness the existing car fleet and for people to ride share - switching on the app dynamically. Just because you have a set of regulations that are outdated and have not kept up with technology and innovation doesn't mean that they cant be moved away from in support of innovation for the betterment of society as a whole.

LuckyLloyd

makeorbrake wrote: »

Says everything about the attitude you bring to your engagement on this discussion. Right back at you.

And again you refuse to answer the key question: what is the difference between ride sharing and taxiing? It's a simple question, and until you can draw a clear difference between the two it renders the rest of the conversation moot.

makeorbrake

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

And again you refuse to answer the key question: what is the difference between ride sharing and taxiing? It's a simple question, and until you can draw a clear difference between the two it renders the rest of the conversation moot.

That's incorrect. You failed to acknowledge the reference to that in the immediate posts beforehand. That's aside from the fact that there are countless pages of content on this thread that lay it out.

And replying with 'blah blah' - whilst a reflection on you - otherwise doesn't cut the mustard.

makeorbrake

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If someone with a taxi plate did the same thing theyd still be called a taxi though.

See my penultimate post above. Additionally, if we are able to make a distinction between hackney and taxi, then it's quite easy to make this distinction too. A separate regulation and license is possible - if the will is there. The suggestion here is that nothing can be changed - that's incorrect.

Guy:Incognito

makeorbrake wrote: »

See my penultimate post above. .

That post just pretty much says "its different because".

Uber is people operating a taxi without a plate or licence. It's not "bringing the country out of the past" or anything like it.

If you owned a restaurant or takeaway and someone on the road started selling food cooked in their kitchen without having to adhere to the same standards, the costs of premises, pay rates or any of the other associated costs of owning and running a food service business, it would hardly be fair and doubtful you'd describe it as the person improving on your outdated business model.

Even if they did promise their kitchen was clean and they were just as good a chef as the guy that went to school to learn.

What part of the taxi industry is stuck in the past btw? Considering UBER is doing the same thing just without the regulation?

end of the road

makeorbrake wrote: »

There's everything different about it unless you want to stay stuck in the past and take the country with you (most likely that's the idea for personal gain or for wayward ideological reasons).

the tiny differences are not enough to have separate regulations, they can be, and are all covered by existing regulation.

makeorbrake wrote: »

If it wasn't different, how would this have ever even have become a thing on a global scale. The ability to harness the existing car fleet and for people to ride share - switching on the app dynamically.

because those pushing it thought they could get around regulations because they called it something different to what it was, and didn't directly employ the staff.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Just because you have a set of regulations that are outdated and have not kept up with technology and innovation doesn't mean that they cant be moved away from in support of innovation for the betterment of society as a whole.

the regulations are up to date. they cover all possible technology and innovation.

n97 mini

Biggest difference is barrier to entry. Getting a taxi on the road is very costly, and will be recouped from the customer.

Next biggest difference is ride-sharing! From day one it's been possible to share rides with other customers who are going a similar route, usually for around a third to half the price of being the sole customer. Uber calls it UberPool, can't remember what Lyft calls it. In dense metro areas like NYC ride-sharing makes up a significant part of the business.

I understand from radio ads that MyTaxi (I think) introduced something similar recently. I don't know if it's still the case that a lot of taxi drivers turn off the app at peak times, which negates the effectiveness of this feature.

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

Biggest difference is barrier to entry. Getting a taxi on the road is very costly, and will be recouped from the customer.

Next biggest difference is ride-sharing! From day one it's been possible to share rides with other customers who are going a similar route, usually for around a third to half the price of being the sole customer. Uber calls it UberPool, can't remember what Lyft calls it. In dense metro areas like NYC ride-sharing makes up a significant part of the business.

I understand from radio ads that MyTaxi (I think) introduced something similar recently. I don't know if it's still the case that a lot of taxi drivers turn off the app at peak times, which negates the effectiveness of this feature.

the cars operating ride sharing are either taxis or hackneys when operating. lets just call them psvs.
the cars are only able to get on the road for less cost by either trying to get around regulations, or their place of operation having little regulation.
so again absolutely nothing different here requiring changes or separate regulation. it's essentially bringing back the taxi industry just after deregulation which had to be reregulated again based on user feedback.

Spook_ie

n97 mini wrote: »

Biggest difference is barrier to entry. Getting a taxi on the road is very costly, and will be recouped from the customer.

Is that not the reason people Uber, they aren't doing it as social justice warriors. They are doing it to make money, the costs of regulations are higher than no regulation but they are there for a reason.

Next biggest difference is ride-sharing! From day one it's been possible to share rides with other customers who are going a similar route, usually for around a third to half the price of being the sole customer. Uber calls it UberPool, can't remember what Lyft calls it. In dense metro areas like NYC ride-sharing makes up a significant part of the business.

Uber didn't have Uberpool until August 2014 Uber's day one was in May 2011
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Uber

I understand from radio ads that MyTaxi (I think) introduced something similar recently. I don't know if it's still the case that a lot of taxi drivers turn off the app at peak times, which negates the effectiveness of this feature.

It's only being trialed in 2 areas of Dublin so far, haven't been to the trial areas at all yet, so unable to comment. Maybe I'll take a deliberate drive over one of the nights and see.
As to drivers turning off app, that would be usually when it's very busy and which tends to cut the cash time wasters out. ( The people who order a FreeNow and don't bother waiting for it ). Uber has a big advantage in only dealing with credit/debit cards. Wish FreeNow were doing cards only.