Uber

magicbastarder

you need to run around the mulberry bush three times at midnight, repeating 'uber's ridesharing is not taxiing' backwards before it actually becomes true, you know.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

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

the average consumer could give a toss about the regulated taxi industry or how it would be disrupted (read: made cheaper) by the likes of Uber and Lyft.

what exactly are the fantastic benefits for the consumer of these regulations?

they want cheaper transport options in a country that has poor public transport options and availability timewise (e.g. at night)

it's like Dunnes Stores being able to stop Lidl coming to Ireland as they'd prefer not to have the hassle of competition.

magicbastarder

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.

there is some skill involved in being an electrician and your house might burn down if the job is not done properly.

doesn't apply to a taxi driver.

makeorbrake

magicbastarder wrote: »

you need to run around the mulberry bush three times at midnight, repeating 'uber's ridesharing is not taxiing' backwards before it actually becomes true, you know.

Respectfully, I think a few folks here may have spent far too much time hanging out of mulberry bushes if they can't figure out the difference. (more likely they do but don't want to admit to it due to either self interest or wayward ideological reasons).

Marcusm

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.

You might want to delete the last para; the ECJ is not bound by its own decisions so it’s hardly a contrast to say that it’s not bound by an Advicate General. Additionally, the ECJ does not generally distinguish between obiter dicta and ratio decidendi in the way a common law court would.

LuckyLloyd

makeorbrake wrote: »

ride sharing is not taxi-ing

How is it different?

makeorbrake

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

How is it different?

Asked and answered ad nauseum. Please read through previous pages of this thread.

magicbastarder

i have seen dozens of 'that's already been answered' posts but not one post that those posts supposedly refer to.

Stephen15

glasso wrote: »

the average consumer could give a toss about the regulated taxi industry or how it would be disrupted (read: made cheaper) by the likes of Uber and Lyft.

what exactly are the fantastic benefits for the consumer of these regulations?

they want cheaper transport options in a country that has poor public transport options and availability timewise (e.g. at night)

it's like Dunnes Stores being able to stop Lidl coming to Ireland as they'd prefer not to have the hassle of competition.

Competition is fine as long as it's regulated. Uber do not want to operate in Ireland as they do not want to comply with Irish regulations. If they are complying with regulations then that is a form of unfair competition.

Dunnes Stores could not try to prevent Lidl entering Ireland unless Lidl were in breach of regulations.

makeorbrake

magicbastarder wrote: »

i have seen dozens of 'that's already been answered' posts but not one post that those posts supposedly refer to.

That's your opinion - but it's a wayward opinion. If you're confused on the subject, please review past posts on this thread.

Stephen15

Stephen15 wrote: »

Competition is fine as long as it's regulated. Uber do not want to operate in Ireland as they do not want to comply with Irish regulations. If they are complying with regulations then that is a form of unfair competition.

Dunnes Stores could not try to prevent Lidl entering Ireland unless Lidl were in breach of regulations.

well this forum is basically vested interests (taxi drivers) arguing against consumers.

I've used Uber in several countries and found the cars and drivers to be of a high standard.

In Ireland there are many problems in public transport both in urban and rural situations.

Uber's flexibility could definitely help alleviate some of those issues (low barrier to entry - no plate or taxi insurance required as under Uber insurance etc) with part-time work.

there is also no price competition in Ireland - due to the "regulations" - that's really the only "regulation" that both sides care about and the rest is smokescreen and semantics

makeorbrake

Stephen15 wrote: »

Competition is fine as long as it's regulated. Uber do not want to operate in Ireland as they do not want to comply with Irish regulations. If they are complying with regulations then that is a form of unfair competition.

Dunnes Stores could not try to prevent Lidl entering Ireland unless Lidl were in breach of regulations.

Have Uber broken irish regulations?

As regards ridesharing generally, if you have a protectionist anti-innovation regulatory regime like we have in Ireland - then you'll end up with - in effect - no ride sharing services. That's where we're at right now.

usernamegoes

magicbastarder wrote: »

you need to run around the mulberry bush three times at midnight, repeating 'uber's ridesharing is not taxiing' backwards before it actually becomes true, you know.

Which bush do we run around to say taxiing is different to hackneying?

Marcusm wrote: »

You might want to delete the last para; the ECJ is not bound by its own decisions so it’s hardly a contrast to say that it’s not bound by an Advicate General. Additionally, the ECJ does not generally distinguish between obiter dicta and ratio decidendi in the way a common law court would.

Of course there is a difference between a non-binding opinion of the AG and a judgment of the ECJ which is is free to reverse.

The ECJ may not use the terms but the point is valid. The questions did not ask the Court to deal with taxing v ridesharing and therefore no argument would be made on this points.

makeorbrake

makeorbrake wrote: »

Have Uber broken irish regulations?

As regards ridesharing generally, if you have a protectionist anti-innovation regulatory regime like we have in Ireland - then you'll end up with - in effect - no ride sharing services. That's where we're at right now.

the "regulation" that Uber want to "break" is the fixed price set by the NTA.

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/taxi-and-bus-licensing/taxi/operating-an-spsv/taxi-fares/

surge pricing would mean expensive prices occasionally but you'd probably see a 20% to 30% reduction on current fares mostly.

glasso

glasso wrote: »

the "regulation" that Uber want to "break" is the fixed price set by the NTA.

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/taxi-and-bus-licensing/taxi/operating-an-spsv/taxi-fares/

surge pricing would mean expensive prices occasionally but you'd probably see a 20% to 30% reduction on current fares mostly .

You do know that their prices are subsidised to a large degree by investor funds. They are almost a literal definition of an unsustainable business model.

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

You do know that their prices are subsidised to a large degree by investor funds. They are almost a literal definition of an unsustainable business model.

So if they're unsustainable as is often mentioned here, what's the concern?

Ride sharing as it was originally intended would wipe the floor with taxi's anyway (and well it's known here - hence the staunch opposition).

the "regulation" that Uber want to "break" is the fixed price set by the NTA.

Well, regulation would have to be set for ride sharing in general. Uber isn't the only show in town. Every platform hasn't adopted the surge pricing model.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

You do know that their prices are subsidised to a large degree by investor funds. They are almost a literal definition of an unsustainable business model.

I do understand that that is the current situation yes.

I still believe that they can be more efficient that what is currently there and that their business model is sustainable long-term due to cross-efficiencies on food delivery and other long-term plays such as autonomous driving solutions.

For the taxi drivers out there because Ireland is usually the last country to adopt anything innovative you're probably safe for the moment.

Vested interests usually do well in this little country also in general

The ideal situation would be to have 3 similar players offering a level of competition to each other.

kippy

makeorbrake wrote: »

So if they're unsustainable as is often mentioned here, what's the concern?

Ride sharing as it was originally intended would wipe the floor with taxi's anyway (and well it's known here - hence the staunch opposition).




Well, regulation would have to be set for ride sharing in general. Uber isn't the only show in town. Every platform hasn't adopted the surge pricing model.

The concern - letting transport operators operate outside of long standing rules and regulations and the impact that will have on the existing ecosystem for both existing operators and the paying public.

The regulation is already there.

kippy

glasso wrote: »

I do understand that that is the current situation yes.

I still believe that they can be more efficient that what is currently there and that their business model is sustainable long-term due to cross-efficiencies on food delivery and other long-term plays such as autonomous driving solutions.

For the taxi drivers out there because Ireland is usually the last country to adopt anything innovative you're probably safe for the moment.

Vested interests usually do well in this little country also in general

Absolute nonsense and again, there is nothing overly inovative about driving paying fares around.

There is no way that more cars on the road is "more efficient" in any way, shape or form, especially around already clogged up cities.

makeorbrake

kippy wrote: »

The concern

You well know I meant the concern over Uber's unsustainable business model.

kippy wrote: »

etting transport operators operate outside of long standing rules and regulations and the impact that will have on the existing ecosystem for both existing operators and the paying public.

The regulation is already there.

Regulation which is protectionist and anti-innovation.

The high horse brigade

Got 2x Taxis last sat on a family trip to the zoo and both of these were clapped out 12 year old smelly piles of 5hite, a Merc and an Avensis. Myself and my wife actually spoke about and compared this to our UK Uber trips in modern Prius, Superb and 508. The quality of Irish taxis is brutal

kippy

makeorbrake wrote: »

You well know I meant the concern over Uber's unsustainable business model.




Regulation which is protectionist and anti-innovation.

Ah ok,
you mean why be so concerned about Uber if their business model is unsustainable?
I don't think there are many here concerned about "Uber" per se, but concerned about establising rules and regulations to regulate a market that is already regulated at the behest of a few keyboard warriors.

makeorbrake

kippy wrote: »

Absolute nonsense and again, there is nothing overly inovative about driving paying fares around.

YOURS is the absolute nonsense. And way to go in (deliberately) misunderstanding the innovation that's implicated.

- use of the existing car fleet. No need for additional cars dedicated to psv (i.e. taxi's).

- enabling people to earn a few quid as they drive around anyways. More efficient environmentally, in terms of congestion and economically.


- enabling people to work dynamically (on a limited basis).

- the ability to implement app driven pooling - such as Uber pool.

- greater quality and smaller price.

- no need for cash payments

- more consumers enabled in affording such a service

- app enabled (Uber and others drove this - for the most part, taxi's followed the innovation).

kippy wrote: »

There is no way that more cars on the road is "more efficient" in any way, shape or form, especially around already clogged up cities.

Well, why would they be clogged up? Because more people are enabled because of better service and smaller prices? Glad we agree on that at least.

Then the regulator could structure regulation to incentivise Uber Pool like service. That does the opposite and brings down the number of cars on the road.

makeorbrake

kippy wrote: »

Ah ok,
you mean why be so concerned about Uber if their business model is unsustainable?
I don't think there are many here concerned about "Uber" per se, but concerned about establising rules and regulations to regulate a market that is already regulated at the behest of a few keyboard warriors.

On that point, we were'nt discussing regulation. You can others have made the point that it's an unsustainable business model. If that's the case whats to worry about? They'll fade away...unless of course you don't think they will fade away afterall. And you'd be right. Despite what sort of silly money they may be throwing at it, you all know they (or other ride sharing services) are here to stay.

kippy

kippy wrote: »

The concern - letting transport operators operate outside of long standing rules and regulations and the impact that will have on the existing ecosystem for both existing operators and the paying public.

The regulation is already there.

the paying public would love 30% cheaper fares.

the existing ecosystem (why don't you just say Taxi Drivers?) would not.

that's what it boils down to.

all this talk or "regulation" is just smokescreen

Spook_ie

magicbastarder wrote: »

i have seen dozens of 'that's already been answered' posts but not one post that those posts supposedly refer to.

[Quot e ] [/Quote]

Would seem to be an unlikely but requisite tool, but sure why bother, the answers with that unicorn don't ya know

magicbastarder

The high horse brigade wrote: »

Got 2x Taxis last sat on a family trip to the zoo and both of these were clapped out 12 year old smelly piles of 5hite, a Merc and an Avensis. Myself and my wife actually spoke about and compared this to our UK Uber trips in modern Prius, Superb and 508. The quality of Irish taxis is brutal

the quality of irish taxis (well, dublin taxis as i'm not really familiar with taxis elsewhere) is weirdly inconsistent. i've gotten taxis where the suspension is clearly crapped out, and other times gotten well cared for mercs, and superbs, which were a year or two old.
but the thing is - uber is only one possible solution to this. for many issues, more regulation, not less, would be a logical step.

there's shag all regulation in ireland on the quality of drivers, and not much more on the quality of cars. but uber supposedly self-regulates, and clearly the irish economy has a fantastic history when it comes to self-regulation.

usernamegoes

At least this taxi driver is honest https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Material_Provided_10_FoI_2016-0038.pdf

kippy

makeorbrake wrote: »

YOURS is the absolute nonsense. And way to go in (deliberately) misunderstanding the innovation that's implicated.

- use of the existing car fleet. No need for additional cars dedicated to psv (i.e. taxi's).
*Not Innovative.
- enabling people to earn a few quid as they drive around anyways. More efficient environmentally, in terms of congestion and economically.
*People don't just "Drive around anyways"

- enabling people to work dynamically (on a limited basis).
*Not innovative.

- the ability to implement app driven pooling - such as Uber pool.


- greater quality and smaller price.
*Not Verifiable.
- no need for cash payments
*This is good but hardly innovative.

- more consumers enabled in affording such a service
*Nonsense.

- app enabled (Uber and others drove this - for the most part, taxi's followed the innovation).
*Are you old enough to remember Altavista or Geocities?

Well, why would they be clogged up? Because more people are enabled because of better service and smaller prices? Glad we agree on that at least.
*The would be clogged up because of all these people just "Driving around anyways"

Then the regulator could structure regulation to incentivise Uber Pool like service. That does the opposite and brings down the number of cars on the road.

The post suggested Ireland was the last country to adobt anything innovative - which is an absolutely nonsensical statement to make.
I've addressed specific points above.

kippy

glasso wrote: »

the paying public would love 30% cheaper fares.

the existing ecosystem (why don't you just say Taxi Drivers?) would not.

that's what it boils down to.

all this talk or "regulation" is just smokescreen

The ecosystem is not just Taxi drivers.