Uber

Guy:Incognito

People can and have been sharing taxi's since the concept (of taxi's) was invented. It's generally friends jumping in together but theres nothing stopping a couple of more of people going the same general direction from hopping in a taxi together and sharing it.

LuckyLloyd

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

People can and have been sharing taxi's since the concept (of taxi's) was invented. It's generally friends jumping in together but theres nothing stopping a couple of more of people going the same general direction from hopping in a taxi together and sharing it.

Free Now facilitate it via their app now too

n97 mini

Spook_ie wrote: »

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.

There is regulation, just not by the civil service.

Spook_ie wrote: »

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

Minor mistake. Day one for me was Manchester in 2015.

Spook_ie wrote: »

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.

I'll take your word for it. As I've said before I don't use taxis.

Spook_ie wrote: »

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.

I understood it was to avoid paying comission and to a lesser extent tax, as cash fares are untraceable. Or so I've been told.

n97 mini

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

theres nothing stopping a couple of more of people going the same general direction from hopping in a taxi together and sharing it.

There's nothing stopping it, but generally speaking there's no mechanism to facilitate it until very recently. But as I said, it won't work when drivers switch off the app at peak times.

Spook_ie

n97 mini wrote: »

There is regulation, just not by the civil service.

Again the main question is who sets the bar, a for profit organisation, whose sole aim is to make money or a government authorized body.

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

There is regulation, just not by the civil service.

exactly. it's self-regulation. regulation via the whim of a private company which can change at any time depending on the company's costs, losses and profits.
civil service regulation generally operates on the basis of the good of industry and it's users as a whole and changes on that basis. so is trust worthy and reliable, even if it can be imperfect at times.

n97 mini

Spook_ie wrote: »

Again the main question is who sets the bar, a for profit organisation, whose sole aim is to make money or a government authorized body.

Which has higher standards?

As regards for profit, Law Society regulates the legal profession, so it's not like self regulation doesn't already exist in this country.

Government bodies are notoriously susceptible to political interference, arguably for the sole aim of re-election.

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

The Law Society regulates the legal profession, so it's not like self regulation doesn't already exist in this country.

yes but i can't imagine the law society simply make the rules, rather they regulate the rules as set down by government along with whatever specific codes of conduct they have.
uber on the other hand make up their own rules where there is no government regulation.

n97 mini wrote: »

Government bodies are notoriously susceptible to political interference, arguably for the sole aim of re-election.

sure, but it's nothing compared to the potential effects of simply leaving it to a private company to decide it's own rules, where the safety of people is concerned.
also the interference in such government bodies is not guaranteed to get the result the interferer would like, and even if it did, not enough to guarantee reelection. in fact, the result may insure a definite unelection for those implementing that result.

Spook_ie

n97 mini wrote: »

Which has higher standards?

As regards for profit, Law Society regulates the legal profession, so it's not like self regulation doesn't already exist in this country.

Government bodies are notoriously susceptible to political interference, arguably for the sole aim of re-election.

Well if Uber, Lyft, Taxify, FreeNow etc. were to all band together to form a society for regulation of transport or whatever you might have an argument for it, but a single for profit company, you've a big imagination to compare them to a non profit organisation

The Law Society exercises statutory functions under the Solicitors Acts 1954 to 2015 in relation to the education, admission, enrolment, discipline and regulation of the solicitors' profession. It is the professional body for its solicitor members, to whom it also provides services and support.

The Law Society cannot provide legal advice. If you have a legal query, please contact a solicitor.

Spook_ie

n97 mini wrote: »

T<snipped>


Minor mistake. Day one for me was Manchester in 2015.



I<snipped>.

Assuming your Uber experiences are based on Manchester, if not let us know where so I can see Uber requirements for there.

https://secure.manchester.gov.uk/directory/26/licensing/category/362
If Uber aren't using licensed PHV ( Irish Hackney) or Hackney (Irish Taxi) Yeah opposite way around. Then they are breaking the law.

Of note are the fees
Driver

Fees
The application fee is £255 and you will also have to pay for:

basic skills assessment £42.00;
knowledge test fee £74.00; and
enhanced disclosure DBS application/certificate, £66.60 - you pay directly to CBS Ltd (we’ll let you know how to do this later). You must complete, pay and submit the application before you attend your appointment.

Vehicle

Fees
Vehicle applications - Private hire vehicles

These fees do not include the cost of vehicle tests and any plates, stickers, other consumables or notice fees.

New application

Current fee £148
Renewal application

Current fee £144
Variation (replacement) & renewal application

Current fee £162
Beyond the age application (charged in addition to the renewal application fee)

Current fee £77
Vehicle test fees - charged in addition to the above application fees

Vehicle is brand new (delivery miles only) - MOT tests one per year £60
Vehicle is less than 5 years old - MOT tests two per year £120
Vehicle is more than 5 years old - MOT tests three per year £180

Can't find any info about fees for Hackneys ( Irish Taxis ) so not sure if they are limited supply in Greater Manchester as they were here in Ireland pre-deregulation.

If Uber are working to the regulations in Manchester then it would seem that it's not the regulations in Ireland holding them back here.

makeorbrake

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

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

and after the 'because'...it's been fleshed out ..there and in a whole host of posts on this thread.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

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.

It's leaving the country behind the curve. If you have an existing car fleet and there's a possibility to squeeze more out of it, that makes for a more efficient society and economy.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

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.

What standards are being cut?

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

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

How is uber doing anything without regulation? There are a couple of things that are blocking it - like the WAV requirement.
It's more a case of the country not adapting to change fast enough. The countries that innovate faster are far more advanced economies. Using the existing car fleet is far more efficient for the country. If that implicates reduced fares into the bargain, it contributes to a reduced cost of living. If it means the enablement of actual ride sharing - it means more efficiency for the driver in terms of his/her costs.

end of the road wrote: »

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

Which ever way you slice and dice it, it needs to be called out separately and addressed specifically. Otherwise, regulation needs to be amended to enable it - and that doesn't mean some major reduction in standards - quite the opposite. It just means that the regulator has to take a look at the barriers to entry.

end of the road wrote: »

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.

Are you saying that there is a form of ride sharing that is acceptable in your eyes then?

end of the road wrote: »

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

If they don't call out ride sharing specifically and address that, then they're not. And in fact, they cant be - as there is no enablement of ride sharing in Ireland (in real terms).

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

People can and have been sharing taxi's since the concept (of taxi's) was invented. It's generally friends jumping in together but theres nothing stopping a couple of more of people going the same general direction from hopping in a taxi together and sharing it.

That's analog. You enable it through technology - you don't have to know anyone going the way - that stuff just happens between friends and/or by accident. Uber pool has real power to it.

I'm beginning to understand how Uber lost the ECJ case

LuckyLloyd

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm beginning to understand how Uber lost the ECJ case

The inability to cogently differentiate ridesharing from taxiiing would have killed their side of the case stone dead alright.

usernamegoes

Spook_ie wrote: »

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

What happens if my taxi driver that I book via a dispatch operator hasn't paid his insurance premium that month and has his insurance cancelled or he illegally lends his car to another driver? Will the dispatch operator's insurance cover the shortfall from the uninsured driver's fund?

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The inability to cogently differentiate ridesharing from taxiiing would have killed their side of the case stone dead alright.

Can you advise us of the relevant arguments made in the CJEU or where in the opinion of the Court or advocate general the issue of ridesharing v taxing was central to the argument.

LuckyLloyd

usernamegoes wrote: »

Can you advise us of the relevant arguments made in the CJEU or where in the opinion of the Court or advocate general the issue of ridesharing v taxing was central to the argument.

I won’t “advise” you of anything. The opinion of the Advocate General can be found here:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62015CC0434

The original complaint was from Spanish Taxi associations saying that Uber was facilitating people in Spain to offer taxi services without the appropriate licenses and authorisations, essentially creating unfair competition falling foul of relevant regulations.

Sections 41 and 42 address the point head on:

41. What is Uber? Is it a transport undertaking, a taxi business to be blunt? Or is it solely an electronic platform enabling users to locate, book and pay for a transport service provided by someone else?

42.Uber is often described as an undertaking (or platform) in the ‘collaborative’ economy. I do not think there is any point in discussing the precise meaning of that term here. ( 13 ) What is relevant as far as Uber is concerned is that it certainly cannot be considered to be a ride-sharing platform. ( 14 ) Drivers on the Uber platform offer passengers a transport service to a destination selected by the passenger and, accordingly, are paid an amount which far exceeds the mere reimbursement of expenses incurred. It is therefore a traditional transport service. Whether or not it is regarded as forming part of a ‘collaborative economy’ is irrelevant to its classification under the law in force.

“It certainly cannot be considered to be a ride-sharing platform”

Or, to put it another way, it can call itself whatever it likes but the reality of what it provides is taxiing, provided for in EU law under traditional transport directives. The analysis continues on from section 42 and is comprehensive in its conclusion.

Uber Spain took a disingenuous position in the case, trying to argue it only provided advertising services for Uber BV in the Netherlands, but the opinion outlines why the Uber offering in general is transport, and that is not appropriate to split out the app functions from the actualities of driving a car.

Anyway, people should read this. Once you’ve read it, you’ll truly tire of the repeated flapping around the core points in this thread. Though given the disingenuous nature of Uber’s description of its offering, it shouldn’t be surprising that its fanboys take the same tack.

usernamegoes

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I won’t “advise” you of anything. The opinion of the Advocate General can be found here:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62015CC0434

The original complaint was from Spanish Taxi associations saying that Uber was facilitating people in Spain to offer taxi services without the appropriate licenses and authorisations, essentially creating unfair competition falling foul of relevant regulations.

Sections 41 and 42 address the point head on:



“It certainly cannot be considered to be a ride-sharing platform”

Or, to put it another way, it can call itself whatever it likes but the reality of what it provides is taxiing, provided for in EU law under traditional transport directives. The analysis continues on from section 42 and is comprehensive in its conclusion.

Uber Spain took a disingenuous position in the case, trying to argue it only provided advertising services for Uber BV in the Netherlands, but the opinion outlines why the Uber offering in general is transport, and that is not appropriate to split out the app functions from the actualities of driving a car.

Anyway, people should read this. Once you’ve read it, you’ll truly tire of the repeated flapping around the core points in this thread. Though given the disingenuous nature of Uber’s description of its offering, it shouldn’t be surprising that its fanboys take the same tack.

You have very much misunderstood the law and the point of this case; this much is obvious.

Spook_ie

usernamegoes wrote: »

What happens if my taxi driver that I book via a dispatch operator hasn't paid his insurance premium that month and has his insurance cancelled or he illegally lends his car to another driver? Will the dispatch operator's insurance cover the shortfall from the uninsured driver's fund?

AFAIK there wouldn't be a shortfall from the MIBI fund.
If he illegally lends his car to another driver Ubers cover wouldn't kick in, if he hasn't the required cover on his car then again Uber cover wouldn't likely kick in because it's a top up policy not a replacement policy

Can you advise us of the relevant arguments made in the CJEU or where in the opinion of the Court or advocate general the issue of ridesharing v taxing was central to the argument.

Wish people would edit multiple replies so that it makes sense when you read it back as to which reply is to which poster

LuckyLloyd

usernamegoes wrote: »

You have very much misunderstood the law and the point of this case; this much is obvious.

Oh yeah? You should probably substantiate that. I’m reading and quoting the Advocate General opinion directly.

Spook_ie

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Oh yeah? You should probably substantiate that. I’m reading and quoting the Advocate General opinion directly.

Yeah, well the Advocate General wouldn't know anything at all, at all, would he!

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm beginning to understand how Uber lost the ECJ case

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The inability to cogently differentiate ridesharing from taxiiing would have killed their side of the case stone dead alright.

What makes you both look thick is the fact that the rest of the world recognises the unique aspect of the sharing economy as it relates to ridesharing. But go ahead and make fools of yourselves.

magicbastarder

ridesharing (as practiced by uber) =/= sharing. how difficult can this be?

makeorbrake

magicbastarder wrote: »

ridesharing (as practiced by uber) =/= sharing. how difficult can this be?

How difficult indeed when the discourse here amongst the naysayers won't recognise any form or implementation of ride sharing. Therefore, absolutely no point in going into the specifics of Uber's implementation.

LuckyLloyd

makeorbrake wrote: »

What makes you both look thick is the fact that the rest of the world recognises the unique aspect of the sharing economy as it relates to ridesharing. But go ahead and make fools of yourselves.

Both of us are “thick” so, along with the Advocate General, who doesn’t see the uniqueness as:

- justifying a separate legal treatment of an app platform to facilitate taxiiing as distinct from the taxiing itself
- justifying the entire service package (app platform, drivers, price control) being subject to directives other than those that exist to cover taxiing / transport

You may believe that you’ve somehow proved otherwise (which I don’t really think you do, but whatever) and you may state ad nauseam that you’ve proved otherwise but it simply isn’t the case.

LuckyLloyd

magicbastarder wrote: »

ridesharing (as practiced by uber) =/= sharing. how difficult can this be?

It’s not difficult. So long as I’m charging you a fee (controlled by me) to provide a service at your request I’m no longer sharing anything with you. That’s the core of the issue that Makeorbrake continuously fails to address.

makeorbrake

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

You may believe that you’ve somehow proved otherwise (which I don’t really think you do, but whatever) and you may state ad nauseam that you’ve proved otherwise but it simply isn’t the case.

I most certainly do - and anyone that is progressive around the world takes that view also. As regards 'proved otherwise' that's your coloured opinion - and nothing more.

makeorbrake

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It’s not difficult. So long as I’m charging you a fee (controlled by me) to provide a service at your request I’m no longer sharing anything with you. That’s the core of the issue that Makeorbrake continuously fails to address.

Its a fallacy to suggest that there isn't a distinct difference between ride sharing and taxiing.

LuckyLloyd

makeorbrake wrote: »

Its a fallacy to suggest that there isn't a distinct difference between ride sharing and taxiing.

So what’s the difference? I’m all ears.

makeorbrake

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

So what’s the difference? I’m all ears.

Covered in depth already. Please take the time to read through.

Spook_ie

Spook_ie wrote: »

AFAIK there wouldn't be a shortfall from the MIBI fund.
If he illegally lends his car to another driver Ubers cover wouldn't kick in, if he hasn't the required cover on his car then again Uber cover wouldn't likely kick in because it's a top up policy not a replacement policy

Uber Insurance Requirements US

FOR PARTNERS
Insurance Requirements
To drive with Uber, you are required to have, and provide proof of an appropriate level of vehicle insurance. The requirements are:

- You must have comprehensive or third party property damage cover.
- You must be listed as an insured driver on the policy, even if you are driving someone else's car.
- The insurance policy must list the vehicle make type, model, year and registration
- The insurance policy must display an effective and expiry date.

and
Insurance Requirements US

Insurance requirements
Uber maintains automobile liability insurance on behalf of all U.S. rideshare driver-partners while logged onto the Uber app.

As a ride-sharing driver, you are also required to maintain auto insurance that meets your state's minimum financial responsibility.

Driver-partners who have a livery or limo business must maintain all compulsory licensing and commercial insurance requirements in accordance with state or local law

There are various policies that are different for different countries, for example in the UK you are required to have for "hire and reward" or at least in the ones I checked

LuckyLloyd

makeorbrake wrote: »

Covered in depth already. Please take the time to read through.

Can you not offer a few sentences cogently summarising the difference? Because there are a few posters along with me who don't agree that it's been covered. And seeing as you are convinced that there is an obvious difference, it should be easy to summarise. You genuinely have my ear here.