Uber

makeorbrake

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

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.

LL, I have no intention of trying to change the entrenched views of you and your co-travellers on this subject :-)
I'm happy that the issue has been covered over a multitude of posts.

LuckyLloyd

makeorbrake wrote: »

LL, I have no intention of trying to change the entrenched views of you and your co-travellers on this subject :-)
I'm happy that the issue has been covered over a multitude of posts.

So no, there is no difference between taxiing and ridesharing. You could have saved a few hundred posts admitting the obvious a couple of weeks ago but shur.

usernamegoes

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

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

The reason the AG does not offer an opinion on ridesharing v taxing is because the ECJ was not asked that point.

The ECJ's judgement does not try to answer the question of what is taxing and what is ridesharing because it didn't need to. All it needs to answer was was Uber offering ‘a service in the field of transport’ or an ‘information society service’. That's all.

The Court held that Uber was offering a service in the field of transport. Not that ridesharing was taxing.

Once it had decided that it was then up to Member States to choose how to regulate such services. Ireland didn't have to change anything because it already regulated such services.

Even if a a future Directive or Irish legislation allowed ridesharing this judgement would have no major issue as such services would still be
offering a service in the field of transport under the ECJ's ruling.

TLDR: The AG (not a binding decision-maker as I am sure you know) and the ECJ were not asked to opine on this point and even if they did it would be Obiter Dictum as we say in the law.

makeorbrake

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

So no, there is no difference between taxiing and ridesharing. You could have saved a few hundred posts admitting the obvious a couple of weeks ago but shur.

You trying to declare black is white isn't going to cut the mustard, dude. But live in whatever fantasy world you want - I don't mind.

LuckyLloyd

usernamegoes wrote: »

The reason the AG does not offer an opinion on ridesharing v taxing is because the ECJ was not asked that point.

The ECJ's judgement does not try to answer the question of what is taxing and what is ridesharing because it didn't need to. All it needs to answer was was Uber offering ‘a service in the field of transport’ or an ‘information society service’. That's all.

The Court held that Uber was offering a service in the field of transport. Not that ridesharing was taxing.

Once it had decided that it was then up to Member States to choose how to regulate such services. Ireland didn't have to change anything because it already regulated such services.

Even if a a future Directive or Irish legislation allowed ridesharing this judgement would have no major issue as such services would still be
offering a service in the field of transport under the ECJ's ruling.

TLDR: The AG (not a binding decision-maker as I am sure you know) and the ECJ were not asked to opine on this point and even if they did it would be Obiter Dictum as we say in the law.

They were asked whether Uber was providing a transport service or some other type of service and, as part of addressing that question, they provide an expansive analysis of Uber as a traditional taxi / transport provider. I quoted the Advocate General opinion but as you know the court did not materially disagree with their opinion on this occasion.

They’re a taxi company. We await some convincing argument to the contrary.

LuckyLloyd

makeorbrake wrote: »

You trying to declare black is white isn't going to cut the mustard, dude. But live in whatever fantasy world you want - I don't mind.

It is you who can’t express his position in a cogent couple of sentences. As such, probably time to lock her up.

makeorbrake

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It is you who can’t express his position in a cogent couple of sentences. As such, probably time to lock her up.

That is your opinion and purely by coincidence you come from the other side of the debate. Your opinion is wayward.

And just as another body check - its entirely up to the regulator. They can mash it all together or they can regulate separately. Just because they haven't done so thus far doesn't mean that they can't or in the future, that they won't.

usernamegoes

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

They were asked whether Uber was providing a transport service or some other type of service and, as part of addressing that question, they provide an expansive analysis of Uber as a traditional taxi / transport provider. I quoted the Advocate General opinion but as you know the court did not materially disagree with their opinion on this occasion.

They’re a taxi company. We await some convincing argument to the contrary.

There was little to no analysis as to ridesharing v taxing. It was about whether Uber's platform is a transport service rather than tech company.

I don't believe you know how the ECJ deal with AG opinions. The Court didn't address the taxi v RS question is because it didn't need to. It's as simple as that.

n97 mini

Does it really matter if some people view ride-sharing as taxiing? Or as ride-sharing for that matter.

It appears to me only the pro taxi lobby have a view that it is taxiing, and want it regulated as such so that they can stifle competition and keep their arcane regulatory practices that keep availability low to keep prices high.

In other countries ride-sharing is the answer to inflated prices, but here it'll be 24 hour bus routes. And shock horror, some of those will be run by the private sector.

makeorbrake

n97 mini wrote: »

In other countries ride-sharing is the answer to inflated prices, but here it'll be 24 hour bus routes. And shock horror, some of those will be run by the private sector.

Yeah, the night bus is the answer to keeping Uber out. I'm pretty confident there's NOWHERE on the planet that has unearthed that level of desperation in trying to support an argument that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

magicbastarder

The Innisfil experiment: the town that replaced public transit with Uber

In 2017, the town in Ontario, Canada, embarked on an ambitious – and, to its critics, fraught – experiment. It handed responsibility for public transit to the ride-sharing app Uber.
Instead of buses or trains plying regular routes, it is Uber’s roving cars that function as the transit fleet. When a rider opens the app, Innisfil Transit pops up as the cheapest option to travel between a network of popular areas called “hubs”, such as libraries, the recreation centre or municipal buildings.
...
But beyond the excitement of essentially having subsidised taxi service, experts paint a more troubling picture of questionable economic and environmental sustainability. The city has now spent more on Uber than the traditional transit option it was considering, and has dramatically increased the number of cars on its roads, with worrying implications for air quality and the climate crisis.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jul/16/the-innisfil-experiment-the-town-that-replaced-public-transit-with-uber

Spook_ie

magicbastarder wrote: »

The Innisfil experiment: the town that replaced public transit with Uber

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jul/16/the-innisfil-experiment-the-town-that-replaced-public-transit-with-uber

Doesn't matter how many real world reports, articles etc. that are provided a core group of people are sticking their fingers in their collective ears, humming loudly to themselves to drown out any voices of discord and trying to sleepwalk the rest of us into the land of Uber.

magicbastarder

i just find it startling that in a town of 40,000 people, over 2,000 are uer drivers. that's a *horrendously* inefficient 'public transport' service.

it seems to have a vey low population density though.

makeorbrake

Spook_ie wrote: »

Doesn't matter how many real world reports, articles etc. that are provided a core group of people are sticking their fingers in their collective ears, humming loudly to themselves to drown out any voices of discord and trying to sleepwalk the rest of us into the land of Uber.

And any old story that you can use to further your own objective here will work right, without context.

They chose to use it to REPLACE buses and trains! :rolleyes: What do you expect happened as a consequence. I don't recall any such suggestion in this thread. All manner of things can happen if there is a poorly thought out plan.

kippy

makeorbrake wrote: »

And any old story that you can use to further your own objective here will work right, without context.

They chose to use it to REPLACE buses and trains! :rolleyes: What do you expect happened as a consequence. I don't recall any such suggestion in this thread. All manner of things can happen if there is a poorly thought out plan.

But surely you can admit that the increase in car journeys (due to human laziness more than anything else) as a result of a service such as Uber and others like it is extremely bad for the environment and goes against pretty much all of the current trends?

makeorbrake

kippy wrote: »

But surely you can admit that the increase in car journeys (due to human laziness more than anything else) as a result of a service such as Uber and others like it is extremely bad for the environment and goes against pretty much all of the current trends?

Eh, look at the example given. They used Uber as a means to replace buses and trains. NO-ONE here has suggested such a thing. So, to your point - no I don't agree.

If anything, it demonstrates the importance of planning and system design and that's where regulation (conscious, fully thought out and engaged) comes in too.

devnull

Please be civil with each other else I'll be getting the cards out

- Moderator

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

Does it really matter if some people view ride-sharing as taxiing? Or as ride-sharing for that matter.

It appears to me only the pro taxi lobby have a view that it is taxiing, and want it regulated as such so that they can stifle competition and keep their arcane regulatory practices that keep availability low to keep prices high.

In other countries ride-sharing is the answer to inflated prices, but here it'll be 24 hour bus routes. And shock horror, some of those will be run by the private sector.

regulating ride sharing as exactly what it is isn't stifling competition. it is insuring a level playing field for all psvs.
24 hour bus routes is something many of us public transport users want and they will benefit us greatly. they are hugely welcome and long over due.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Yeah, the night bus is the answer to keeping Uber out. I'm pretty confident there's NOWHERE on the planet that has unearthed that level of desperation in trying to support an argument that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

uber is not being kept out. they already operate in ireland. it is uber itself which is preventing itself from expanding further.

makeorbrake

end of the road wrote: »

regulating ride sharing as exactly what it is isn't stifling competition. it is insuring a level playing field for all psvs.

Except it's being regulated out of existence. Therefore, there is no level playing field (not that they're on the same playing field in any event. Just because one could pull users from one to the other doesn't put them on the same playing field in and of itself.

end of the road wrote: »

24 hour bus routes is something many of us public transport users want and they will benefit us greatly. they are hugely welcome and long over due.

Any further expansion of public transportation is always to be welcomed.

end of the road wrote: »

uber is not being kept out. they already operate in ireland. it is uber itself which is preventing itself from expanding further.

That's not true. Ask anyone on the streets if we have Uber and they' will tell you we don't. That's kind of symptomatic of the fact that it has effectively been regulated out of existence in real terms.

Of course we can agree to disagree - that option is open to you.

n97 mini

end of the road wrote: »

regulating ride sharing as exactly what it is isn't stifling competition. it is insuring a level playing field for all psvs.
24 hour bus routes is something many of us public transport users want and they will benefit us greatly. they are hugely welcome and long over due.





uber is not being kept out. they already operate in ireland. it is uber itself which is preventing itself from expanding further.

If public transport doesn't work for you, you have exactly one alternative, a taxi. They all charge the same rate, as they've no competition. Uber in Ireland gets you a taxi, not an UberX. I think Uber are only still here as they have offices in Limerick employing a few hundred.

I agree with you about 24 hour bus routes. Late night travellers need an affordable alternative to taxis.

ELM327

I don't understand why we can't just have uber like in the US.
It's so successful over there, seems like cronyism and protectionism is the only reason we don't have it here. Jobs for the lads in the taxis.

Spook_ie

ELM327 wrote: »

I don't understand why we can't just have uber like in the US.
It's so successful over there, seems like cronyism and protectionism is the only reason we don't have it here. Jobs for the lads in the taxis.

The reason you can't have it like the US is because we have a government body called the National Transport Authority, and their job is to oversee the SPSV and passenger transport sector, of which Uber as a transport provider is deemed to be a part of since the ECJ judgement.

ELM327

ELM327 wrote: »

I don't understand why we can't just have uber like in the US.
It's so successful over there, seems like cronyism and protectionism is the only reason we don't have it here. Jobs for the lads in the taxis.

We can and do have Uber here, we just don't have it on a large scale because Uber prefer a market where they can run roughshod over regulations, competitors and consumers.

usernamegoes

Spook_ie wrote: »

The reason you can't have it like the US is because we have a government body called the National Transport Authority, and their job is to oversee the SPSV and passenger transport sector, of which Uber as a transport provider is deemed to be a part of since the ECJ judgement.

The ECJ judgment has no relevance to why Uber ridesharing doesn't operate in Ireland. It would have relevance as to whether Uber would have to be regulated as a dispatch operator, that doesn't seem to matter too much to Uber in Ireland. If Uber had have won the case that would not have affected Ireland's laws on regulation of driving other people for reward.

The other poster is correct; it's protectionism.

usernamegoes

Deleted User wrote: »

We can and do have Uber here, we just don't have it on a large scale because Uber prefer a market where they can run roughshod over regulations, competitors and consumers.

No, Uber (proper) have tried to enter the Irish market, but have not due to the regulations not allowing it. It's not that they prefer not to. I don't think that's even a debate to be fair.

The debate is whether the regulations should accommodate ridesharing.

usernamegoes

usernamegoes wrote: »

The debate is whether the regulations should accommodate ridesharing.

they charge a fare for carrying passengers from A to B, its not sharing, its a taxi for which regulations exist

magicbastarder

by any sensible definition of 'sharing', uber's core business is not one of sharing.

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

they charge a fare for carrying passengers from A to B, its not sharing, its a taxi for which regulations exist

ride sharing is not taxi-ing. Regulation can distinguish between hackney and taxi. It can do so with ridesharing and taxi'ing.

magicbastarder

it'd be like claiming that getting my accountant mate Gav to rewire my fuseboard for me is 'electriciansharing'. it's not, it's getting someone to do a job cheaper because they claim the regulations should not apply to them.

makeorbrake

magicbastarder wrote: »

it'd be like claiming that getting my accountant mate Gav to rewire my fuseboard for me is 'electriciansharing'. it's not, it's getting someone to do a job cheaper because they claim the regulations should not apply to them.

Ride sharing and the sharing economy has been recognised around the world as a separate innovation. It wouldn't become a thing if it was just taxi'ing.