Uber

I did a ride share last weekend in a taxi to get me into the city.

I pooled with others going home in my ride sharing taxi, again with a very nice taxi driver who choose to work a few hours on the weekend to make a few extra quid.

Both times I requested and paid for the ride share through an app.

Uber does nothing different to the above that warrants different regulations.

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

I did a ride share last weekend in a taxi to get me into the city.

I pooled with others going home in my ride sharing taxi, again with a very nice taxi driver who choose to work a few hours on the weekend to make a few extra quid.

Both times I requested and paid for the ride share through an app.

Uber does nothing different to the above that warrants different regulations.

You paid for pooling via the app? If so, which app?



Other than that, you keep trying to ignore the other implications of actual ride sharing - like enabling people to use their existing cars (part of the country's existing car fleet) to work for a couple of hours. The ability of a driver to switch on the app as they drive in / out of the city on a long commute....or any other journey dynamically.

magicbastarder

perhaps to avoid confusion, a standardised set of definitions is needed here because this thread has gone a bit postmodern, language seems to have no rules anymore, words can mean whatever people want them to mean.

i suggest the following:
1. hackney(ing): where a customer orders or can order a car with a dedicated driver (by phone/app/etc.) from an arranged pickup point, to any destination. the driver would not be making this trip unless being paid by the customer to do so.
2. taxi(ing): where a customer can do the above, but also hail the car and driver on the street on spec.
3. ride sharing: where two or more *unconnected* parties can concurrently share the services of either system above to maximise the (admittedly low) efficiency of car usage to get from point A to point B, on the understanding that they can share pickup point and destination point.
4. car pooling: not a commercial service, but where someone going from point A to point B can offer to share the car and costs with someone else, who is otherwise independently going from point A to point B anyway. this is not done for commercial gain, either party would be making the trip regardless.

i know many people will conflate the definitions of the last two categories, i suspect the 'ride sharing' category as i mentioned it is extremely rare; if someone mentioned ride sharing to me, my first assumption would be they meant car pooling.

makeorbrake

makeorbrake wrote: »

You paid for pooling via the app? If so, which app?

I paid for the taxi, other riders paid their share to me. Nothing exceptional, only difference was I paid through the app.

Other than that, you keep trying to ignore the other implications of actual ride sharing - like enabling people to use their existing cars (part of the country's existing car fleet) to work for a couple of hours. The ability of a driver to switch on the app as they drive in / out of the city on a long commute....or any other journey dynamically.

Umm, most taxi drivers use their own, existing cars, nothing new there and definitely not something that warrants new regulations

There's a chunk of drivers that taxi to supplement their existing income and only work a few hours, again not something that warrants new regulations

Nothing stopping an existing taxi driver from making himself available on a drive into town, nothing here that warrants new regulations

I've said it previously here and I'll say it again, there has not been a single good argument put forward as to why Uber is any different to any other transport provider and as such should be treated differently.

Sorry maybe I should rephrase, there has not been a single good, logical argument put forward that withstands scrutiny.

Literally every single argument put forward has collapsed when analysed

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

I paid for the taxi, other riders paid their share to me. Nothing exceptional, only difference was I paid through the app.

Right - so analog version. So with Uber Pool - that becomes prolific....but lets go with the occasional usage. It's interesting that people here have screamed blue murder about how Uber if facilitated would be wildly successful - such that it would cause all manner of pollution and congestion. Yet, they're against proper facilitation of car pooling.

Deleted User wrote: »

Umm, most taxi drivers use their own, existing cars, nothing new there and definitely not something that warrants new regulations

There's a chunk of drivers that taxi to supplement their existing income and only work a few hours, again not something that warrants new regulations

They own their own existing work vehicle. I see. I'm talking about the utilisation of cars who's primary use is for other purposes and cars that would otherwise be sitting on the driveway.

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing stopping an existing taxi driver from making himself available on a drive into town, nothing here that warrants new regulations

We're not talking about taxi drivers. And there's everything to warrant regulation such that ride sharing in Ireland is enabled.

Deleted User wrote: »

I've said it previously here and I'll say it again, there has not been a single good argument put forward as to why Uber is any different to any other transport provider and as such should be treated differently.

Lol ...that's your opinion (and you came to the discussion with those coloured views to start with). i.e. lacks credibility.

Just saying "it warrants new regulations just because that's the why" and repeating that ad nauseum does not take away from the fact that you have yet to identify a single solitary logical reason as to why

A - ride sharing does not equal taxiing

B - what makes it so different that it would require different regulations

There is not one single aspect of the proposal that cannot be covered by existing regulations.

If I'm missing something by all means clarify. I'm always open to correction

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

Just saying "it warrants new regulations just because that's the why" and repeating that ad nauseum does not take away from the fact that you have yet to identify a single solitary logical reason as to why

Take a look in the mirror. Has been backed up appropriately - you (and other naysayers here ) claim otherwise ...its akin to an ostrich burying its head in the sand.

Deleted User wrote: »

A - ride sharing does not equal taxiing

B - what makes it so different that it would require different regulations

Asked and answered many times already. Respectfully, I invite you to review previous posts on this thread. It's a case that the info is there but you don't like what you're reading as it doesn't lead to your desired outcome.

Deleted User wrote: »

There is not one single aspect of the proposal that cannot be covered by existing regulations.

And yet, it's not covered in existing regulations. On your side of the fence, you accept that there is a distinction made between hackneying and taxi-ing and when it's drawn to your attention there needs to be a distinction made when it comes to ride sharing, that's met with an absolute 'no'. Says it all really. The optics are not good for the naysayers.

Deleted User wrote: »

If I'm missing something by all means clarify. I'm always open to correction

No problem at all - see clarification above. A little bed time reading through the past 80 pages should bring you up to speed (or ameliorate the self induced amnesia...either/or).

LuckyLloyd

Which post or posts should we be reviewing?

makeorbrake

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Which post or posts should we be reviewing?

With respect, I'm under no duty or obligation to go scrolling through pages of content to find them for you. The topic came up multiple times though.

makeorbrake

makeorbrake wrote: »

Take a look in the mirror. Has been backed up appropriately - you (and other naysayers here ) claim otherwise ...its akin to an ostrich burying its head in the sand.


Asked and answered many times already. Respectfully, I invite you to review previous posts on this thread. It's a case that the info is there but you don't like what you're reading as it doesn't lead to your desired outcome.


And yet, it's not covered in existing regulations. On your side of the fence, you accept that there is a distinction made between hackneying and taxi-ing and when it's drawn to your attention there needs to be a distinction made when it comes to ride sharing, that's met with an absolute 'no'. Says it all really. The optics are not good for the naysayers.


No problem at all - see clarification above. A little bed time reading through the past 80 pages should bring you up to speed (or ameliorate the self induced amnesia...either/or).

You miss my point. I'm saying that nothing that has been posted here so far has outlined logical reasons, which stand up to scrutiny, as to why

A - ride sharing is different to taxiing

B - it's different enough to warrant different regulations

Every reason posted so far has fallen through when put through any kind of logical analysis.

basically there are some miserable bastards out there who just don't want the general public to be able to get home for cheaper of a Saturday night.

they're called -> taxi drivers.

usernamegoes

end of the road wrote: »

ride sharing is happening and everything that is a component of it is already within the psv regulations. there is nothing different about the basic components of ride sharing that would require new/separate regulation.

Deleted User wrote: »

Just saying "it warrants new regulations just because that's the why" and repeating that ad nauseum does not take away from the fact that you have yet to identify a single solitary logical reason as to why

A - ride sharing does not equal taxiing

B - what makes it so different that it would require different regulations

There is not one single aspect of the proposal that cannot be covered by existing regulations.

If I'm missing something by all means clarify. I'm always open to correction

What do you think are the important differences between taxis, limos, and hackneys, and any other PSV you care to include?

Spook_ie

usernamegoes wrote: »

What do you think are the important differences between taxis, limos, and hackneys, and any other PSV you care to include?

I've already covered that in a previous post, and it's not what people think it's what the NTA mandates.

usernamegoes

Spook_ie wrote: »

I've already covered that in a previous post, and it's not what people think it's what the NTA mandates.

I don't remember where you posted that, perhaps I missed it.

Oh the great and powerful Oz tells you what you should think and you must be happy with it!

Of course it's relevant what you think the differences are, it seems you're happy to make arbitrary distinctions because that suits you as the status quo but you object to other distinctions because they don't suit your agenda.

I'll put forward my thoughts.


Ability to be Hailed on the Street
Taxis - Yes
Hackneys - No
Ridesharing - No
Limos - No

Pre-booked
Taxis - Yes
Hackneys - Only
Ridesharing - Only
Limos - Only


Fare
Taxis - Metered prices with surges set based on time by regulator
Hackneys - Negotiated
Ridesharing - Metered prices with surges based on dynamic demand set by company
Limos - Negotiated

Type of Car Leaving Aside the WAV issue
Taxis - Most normal cars must put signs and stickers
Hackneys - Most Normal Cars
Ridesharing - Most Normal Cars
Limos - High End Cars

Driver
Taxis - Professional Drivers passing a test
Hackneys - Professional Drivers passing a test
Ridesharing - amateur driver
Limos - Professional Drivers passing a test

Work Organisation
Taxi - Can work Solo or for dispatch operator
Hackney - Can work Solo or for dispatch operator
Risdesharing - Must work for dispatch operator
Limo - ?

Route Knowledge
Taxi - Must pass test
Hackney - Must pass test
Ridesharing - Follow GPS
Limo - ?

Are there any differences I missed? As you can see Riesharing doesn't fit into any of those, so I guess it's not any of them.

Spook_ie

usernamegoes wrote: »

I don't remember where you posted that, perhaps I missed it.

Oh the great and powerful Oz tells you what you should think and you must be happy with it!

Of course it's relevant what you think the differences are, it seems you're happy to make arbitrary distinctions because that suits you as the status quo but you object to other distinctions because they don't suit your agenda.

I'll put forward my thoughts.


Ability to be Hailed on the Street
Taxis - Yes
Hackneys - No
Ridesharing - No
Limos - No

Pre-booked
Taxis - Yes
Hackneys - Only
Ridesharing - Only
Limos - Only


Fare
Taxis - Metered prices with surges set based on time by regulator
Hackneys - Negotiated
Ridesharing - Metered prices with surges based on dynamic demand set by company
Limos - Negotiated

Type of Car Leaving Aside the WAV issue
Taxis - Most normal cars must put signs and stickers
Hackneys - Most Normal Cars
Ridesharing - Most Normal Cars
Limos - High End Cars

Driver
Taxis - Professional Drivers passing a test
Hackneys - Professional Drivers passing a test
Ridesharing - amateur driver
Limos - Professional Drivers passing a test

Work Organisation
Taxi - Can work Solo or for dispatch operator
Hackney - Can work Solo or for dispatch operator
Risdesharing - Must work for dispatch operator
Limo - ?

Route Knowledge
Taxi - Must pass test
Hackney - Must pass test
Ridesharing - Follow GPS
Limo - ?

Are there any differences I missed? As you can see Riesharing doesn't fit into any of those, so I guess it's not any of them.

I make my distinctions based on the regulations, the majority of ridesharing regulations are
already encompassed by hackney regulations, the things that people want from "ridesharing" that are incompatible with general SPSV regulations are.

Fare:-The use of a smart phone and gps as a taximeter, as told to me so often in this thread Uber etc. use pre fixed pricing now, if you say they do then that would fit in with hackney regulations.

Drivers:-I have no problem with a new catagory of driver or the lessening of the requirements for hackney drivers, as they are supposed to be prebooked, they have time to decide a route either by their own knowledge, a GPS app or an A2Z, however, they would still need to be registered.

Work Organization:- Never going to stop rideshare drivers doing the same as hackney drivers, parking outside rural pubs and taking people home for €5 - €10 a passenger.

The two differences that you miss about percieved differences of SPSVs and ridesharing is the requirement for registration with a governing body and insurance for "hire and reward"

Spook_ie

glasso wrote: »

basically there are some miserable bastards out there who just don't want the general public to be able to get home for cheaper of a Saturday night.

they're called -> taxi drivers.

You forget the people who want to get a private ride home for the price of a busfare, they're called -> cheapskates

LuckyLloyd

makeorbrake wrote: »

With respect, I'm under no duty or obligation to go scrolling through pages of content to find them for you. The topic came up multiple times though.

Duty or obligation to support your posting aside, the big issue here is you can’t summarise a difference between ridesharing and taxiing, because there is none.

usernamegoes

Spook_ie wrote: »

I make my distinctions based on the regulations, the majority of ridesharing regulations are
already encompassed by hackney regulations, the things that people want from "ridesharing" that are incompatible with general SPSV regulations are.

That's handy for you.

Fare:-The use of a smart phone and gps as a taximeter, as told to me so often in this thread Uber etc. use pre fixed pricing now, if you say they do then that would fit in with hackney regulations.

I was told earlier that the fixed price must be set before the journey for hackney. This is not how Uber works. It's different.

Drivers:-I have no problem with a new catagory of driver or the lessening of the requirements for hackney drivers, as they are supposed to be prebooked, they have time to decide a route either by their own knowledge, a GPS app or an A2Z, however, they would still need to be registered.

Ah make hackneys into non-professional ridesharing. Again, handy for you. What happend to all this "professional driver" arguments we had many pages back?

Work Organization:- Never going to stop rideshare drivers doing the same as hackney drivers, parking outside rural pubs and taking people home for €5 - €10 a passenger.

So if some people break the law then there's no point differentiating? So you're saying on this point hackneys and taxis are the same. Bizarre, but okay.

The two differences that you miss about percieved differences of SPSVs and ridesharing is the requirement for registration with a governing body and insurance for "hire and reward"

[/QUOTE]

Fine.

[Insurance]
Taxi - Must have insurance for hire and reward.
Hackney - Must have insurance for hire and reward
Ridesharing - Must have ridesharing insurance and supplemental insurance from dispatch operator
Limo - Must have insurance for hire and reward.

[License]
Taxi - must have taxi licence and all that goes with getting that
Hackney - must have hackney licence and all that goes with getting that
Ridesharing - must apply online for a licence for NTA background check etc and must be approved by ridesharing company
Limo - must have limo licence and all that goes with getting that

Again, ridesharing doesn't fit. It's as if it's a different thing.

Spook_ie

usernamegoes wrote: »

That's handy for you.


I was told earlier that the fixed price must be set before the journey for hackney. This is not how Uber works. It's different.

And that's why it would be illegal, if it uses a GPS device as a taximeter it is by definition a taxi and regulated as a taxi, then there is the problem of inaccurate GPS plotting, it happens, especially in metropolitan or wooded areas where GPS signals can be weaker or subject to shadow.

Ah make hackneys into non-professional ridesharing. Again, handy for you. What happend to all this "professional driver" arguments we had many pages back?

Not really, I'm suggesting there could be a new catagory of driver licensing that didn't need to incorporate route kniwledge, as is presently required. They would still be licensed, registered and regulated by the NTA.

So if some people break the law then there's no point differentiating? So you're saying on this point hackneys and taxis are the same. Bizarre, but okay.

Again not really, that's an enforcement issue and as it is now, if i find a hackney working that method I'll report them and leave it to the NTA to enforce, likewise if Uber were doing it I'd report them.

Fine.

[Insurance]
Taxi - Must have insurance for hire and reward.
Hackney - Must have insurance for hire and reward
Ridesharing - Must have ridesharing insurance and supplemental insurance from dispatch operator
Limo - Must have insurance for hire and reward.

No such thing as ridesharing insurance in Ireland, not the NTAs responsibility to ask for it, the ridesharing insurance you speak of is an American get around of their very limited liability insurance, already mentioned in previous posts Uber's $1000000 and a US states minimum insurance isn't a whole lot when compared to current unlimited liabilities of "for hire and reward" insurance, and no matter what way you want to color it is unlikely to happen here. As it is unlikely to happen in the rest of Europe.

[License]
Taxi - must have taxi licence and all that goes with getting that
Hackney - must have hackney licence and all that goes with getting that
Ridesharing - must apply online for a licence for NTA background check etc and must be approved by ridesharing company
Limo - must have limo licence and all that goes with getting that

So dispite you stating already that the vehicle similarity between hackneys and Ubers is nothing, you still want another class of SPSV when hackneys already covers it.

Again, ridesharing doesn't fit. It's as if it's a different thing.

It's not significantly different from current Hackney SPSV regulations to warrant it, the only significent difference that I can see and which I don't see any major objections to would be a new class of SPSV drivers license that eliminated or dumbed down the route knowledge section of the current test.

Spook_ie

usernamegoes wrote: »

<Snipped>
[License]
Taxi - must have taxi licence and all that goes with getting that
Hackney - must have hackney licence and all that goes with getting that
Ridesharing - must apply online for a licence for NTA background check etc and must be approved by ridesharing company
Limo - must have limo licence and all that goes with getting that

Again, ridesharing doesn't fit. It's as if it's a different thing.

Just re-reading your reply, background check! Are you confusing SPSV driver licensing with SPSV vehicle licensing?

Spook_ie

Spook_ie wrote: »

You forget the people who want to get a private ride home for the price of a busfare, they're called -> cheapskates

I'm not expecting that. I'm expecting the price that the free market would provide if it wasn't hiding behind price-setting / fixing masquerading as "regulations".

Spook_ie

glasso wrote: »

I'm not expecting that. I'm expecting the price that the free market would provide if it wasn't hiding behind price-setting / fixing masquerading as "regulations".

Yeah yeah hear it all the time, open up to a free market but don't freemarket the fares.

Maybe we should let Uber set the fares I could live with double rate fares on Friday Saturday nights

Spook_ie

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yeah yeah hear it all the time, open up to a free market but don't freemarket the fares.

Maybe we should let Uber set the fares I could live with double rate fares on Friday Saturday nights

maybe we should but then there will be lyft as well as uber as well as others.

competition.

in high-demand situations price goes up - that's correct.

but you lot just prefer the opaque "price-setting" situation.

end of the road

glasso wrote: »

maybe we should but then there will be lyft as well as uber as well as others.

competition.

in high-demand situations price goes up - that's correct.

but you lot just prefer the opaque "price-setting" situation.

as a user the current price system insures i am not ripped off, whereas if it was left to the free market that is likely what would happen.
we have so much competition in the psv industry that we don't know what to do with it all.

if you use Uber / Lyft etc abroad they give you a very good estimate of the cost - so you can decide if you want to pay that or not.

it's not like you're entering into a relative unknown like stepping into a taxi in an unfamiliar place or going to a new location (where the fares per km/mile and initial charge may be set by regulators but you have no idea what the trip is going to cost).

Spook_ie

glasso wrote: »

if you use Uber / Lyft etc abroad they give you a very good estimate of the cost - so you can decide if you want to pay that or not.

it's not like you're entering into a relative unknown like stepping into a taxi in an unfamiliar place or going to a new location (where the fares per km/mile and initial charge may be set by regulators but you have no idea what the trip is going to cost).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/AMP/2019/05/20/lyft_uber_surge_pricing/&ved=2ahUKEwiH6I-C37_jAhUjRRUIHaA8BYwQFjALegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw2eX2pk3UH-JwJoRCYAZkkJ&ampcf=1

Yeah that works well.

makeorbrake

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Duty or obligation to support your posting aside, the big issue here is you can’t summarise a difference between ridesharing and taxiing, because there is none.

Eh, no. The reality is that the feigned lack of memory as per those posts and my outlining the difference is that it doesn't match your world view (your self interest and/or wayward ideology).

So you telling me that they're the same is your opinion. I've expressed the rationale as to why they're different. You don't agree - and that is what it is.


But that's where it ends. I won't be browbeaten into submission.

makeorbrake

Spook_ie wrote: »

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.theregister.co.uk/AMP/2019/05/20/lyft_uber_surge_pricing/&ved=2ahUKEwiH6I-C37_jAhUjRRUIHaA8BYwQFjALegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw2eX2pk3UH-JwJoRCYAZkkJ&ampcf=1

Yeah that works well.

And your just hiding behind surge pricing. Meanwhile taxi rates are as high as that anyways - so who are you kidding? No reason to take the moral highground (quite the opposite!!).

Other than that, there are ride sharing services that don't involve surge pricing at all. Furthermore, the regulator is at liberty to regulate that aspect of things WITHOUT stifling ride sharing platforms and services.


But that's not the objective you come to the table with. None of the naysayers want any workable alternative to taxi's - that's the reality.

LuckyLloyd

makeorbrake wrote: »

Eh, no. The reality is that the feigned lack of memory as per those posts and my outlining the difference is that it doesn't match your world view (your self interest and/or wayward ideology).

So you telling me that they're the same is your opinion. I've expressed the rationale as to why they're different. You don't agree - and that is what it is.


But that's where it ends. I won't be browbeaten into submission.

Nobody’s looking to “browbeat you into submission”, just asking you to summarise these supposed expressions of difference between ridesharing and taxiing. You’ve come 1200 posts, don’t falter now!

makeorbrake

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Nobody’s looking to “browbeat you into submission”,

I disagree.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

just asking you to summarise these supposed expressions of difference between ridesharing and taxiing.

I respectfully suggested you go back and read previous posts on the topic. It's my very strong contention that this is feigned in any event.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

You’ve come 1200 posts, don’t falter now!

Don't you worry yourself unnecessarily on that front. That's not going to happen, my friend.