Taxi for National Transport Authority!!

knucklehead6

A taxi driver is after being cleared in court after proving that a longer route that he had intended taking some fare paying passengers was actually cheaper than the shortest, most direct route.

Fare play to that man!!

Canis Lupus

I wonder if he knew that or just got lucky

Kimbot

Any links?

kippy

jonnycivic wrote: »

Any links?

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/dublin-taxi-man-cleared-of-taking-passengers-for-a-ride-proves-his-longer-route-was-cheaper-836501.html
Interesting case. Would like to know the specifics.

amcalester

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I wonder if he knew that or just got lucky

Wondered that myself but I think he must have had an idea, otherwise why travel back from Temple Bar to the Airport, surely he'd hang around there for a fare?

Peregrinus

amcalester wrote: »

Wondered that myself but I think he must have had an idea, otherwise why travel back from Temple Bar to the Airport, surely he'd hang around there for a fare?

He may have got a fare from town back to the airport. That wouldn't come out in the evidence because the question of how he got back to the airport isn't really relevant to the charge against him, or the point he's trying to make in his defence.

Jesus there are some ****ing braindead people around. I'm not from Dublin and could tell you there'd be **** all difference with either route.
Tying up a courtroom and wasting **** knows how many people's time over a potential couple of euro by people who haven't a ****ing clue about anything. Brilliant stuff.

seamus

kippy wrote: »

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/dublin-taxi-man-cleared-of-taking-passengers-for-a-ride-proves-his-longer-route-was-cheaper-836501.html
Interesting case. Would like to know the specifics.

Not sure what other specifics you're looking for, it seems to be all there in the article?

I guess from the NTA's perspective, they've probably taken it for granted that the legislation says taxis must take the shortest route, and this means shortest in distance.

The taxi driver's defence counsel argued that "shortest" could also refer to the duration.

I imagine though the court looked at the "spirit" of the law - that is, its purpose - which is to prevent taxi drivers from taking advantage of, and overcharging passengers. So regardless of whether the law requires a shorter distance, the taxi driver was not taking advantage of his passengers, in fact the exact opposite, and was therefore acting within the spirit of the law.

Canis Lupus

Deleted User wrote: »

Jesus there are some ****ing braindead people around. I'm not from Dublin and could tell you there'd be **** all difference with either route.
Tying up a courtroom and wasting **** knows how many people's time over a potential couple of euro by people who haven't a ****ing clue about anything. Brilliant stuff.

Yeah you wouldn't mind if he took them on the wild atlantic way or something but taking him to court over a couple of euro is taking the piss. I wonder what jobsworth pushed ahead with the prosecution.

Franz Von Peppercorn

seamus wrote: »

Not sure what other specifics you're looking for, it seems to be all there in the article?

I guess from the NTA's perspective, they've probably taken it for granted that the legislation says taxis must take the shortest route, and this means shortest in distance.

The taxi driver's defence counsel argued that "shortest" could also refer to the duration.

I imagine though the court looked at the "spirit" of the law - that is, its purpose - which is to prevent taxi drivers from taking advantage of, and overcharging passengers. So regardless of whether the law requires a shorter distance, the taxi driver was not taking advantage of his passengers, in fact the exact opposite, and was therefore acting within the spirit of the law.

Once he produced the second fare that should have been it. How come supposed experts bring this kind of stuff to court. It delegitimises other cases.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Yeah you wouldn't mind if he took them on the wild atlantic way or something but taking him to court over a couple of euro is taking the piss. I wonder what jobsworth pushed ahead with the prosecution.

A couple of euro is important for Dublin. But that’s the point. He saved the commuters money.

Never should have gone to court.

Peregrinus

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Once he produced the second fare that should have been it. How come supposed experts bring this kind of stuff to court. It delegitimises other cases.

Actually, I can see their issue.

If "shortest route" means the shortest in distance, that's easily established and doesn't change over time (barring, e.g., the construction of new roads).

But if it can mean "shortest in time", that's highly variable, even over the course of a single day, and very difficult to establish with certainty. And, since the burden of showing what is the shortest route is on the prosecution, that makes it very difficult ever to prosecute taxi drivers for not taking the shortest route. Which means the requirement to take the shortest route is effectively unenforceable. Which, obviously, is a problem if you're the taxi regulator.

This is one of these areas where the best could be the enemy of the good. A requirement to take the shortest route by distance is easily enforced, and will mostly result in the cheapest fare, or in a fare which is not hugely higher than the cheapest. But a requirement to take the shortest route by time is difficult to enforce and easy to abuse, so taxi-users could lose out.

Boom_Bap

To be fair, if I got in a Taxi to the airport and started driving towards Clarehall I would be very suspect as it's not as the crow flies.

Fair f*cks to that cabbie for getting it right.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, I can see their issue.

If "shortest route" means the shortest in distance, that's easily established and doesn't change over time (barring, e.g., the construction of new roads).

But if it can mean "shortest in time", that's highly variable, even over the course of a single day, and very difficult to establish with certainty. And, since the burden of showing what is the shortest route is on the prosecution, that makes it very difficult ever to prosecute taxi drivers for not taking the shortest route. Which means the requirement to take the shortest route is effectively unenforceable. Which, obviously, is a problem if you're the taxi regulator.

This is one of these areas where the best could be the enemy of the good. A requirement to take the shortest route by distance is easily enforced, and will mostly result in the cheapest fare, or in a fare which is not hugely higher than the cheapest. But a requirement to take the shortest route by time is difficult to enforce and easy to abuse, so taxi-users could lose out.

he won the case because he took the next fare to temple bar via the shortest route and it cost more.

That defense is a valid one. It shouldn’t have gone to court. And forcing the shortest route is not reasonable. Imagine getting in a taxi and facing lots of roadworks on the normal route to the city. The taxi driver says he can’t take a quicker but longer detour because of the regulations.

I’m in favour of these checkpoints for taxis, keeps them honest, but a general “shortest route always” rule is counter productive.

ohnonotgmail

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

he won the case because he took the next fare to temple bar via the shortest route and it cost more.

That defense is a valid one. It shouldn’t have gone to court. And forcing the shortest route is not reasonable. Imagine getting in a taxi and facing lots of roadworks on the normal route to the city. The taxi driver says he can’t take a quicker but longer detour because of the regulations.

I’m in favour of these checkpoints for taxis, keeps them honest, but a general “shortest route always” rule is counter productive.

he took the shortest route the first time after speaking to the NTA inspector. He took the quickest (and his preferred) route for his next fare and it was cheaper.

Peregrinus

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

he won the case because he took the next fare to temple bar via the shortest route and it cost more.

That defense is a valid one. It shouldn’t have gone to court. And forcing the shortest route is not reasonable. Imagine getting in a taxi and facing lots of roadworks on the normal route to the city. The taxi driver says he can’t take a quicker but longer detour because of the regulations.

I’m in favour of these checkpoints for taxis, keeps them honest, but a general “shortest route always” rule is counter productive.

There isn't an "always shortest route" rule.

The rule is that (except where the passenger dictates another route) the driver must take:

(a) the shortest route, where practicable, or

(b) with the consent of the passenger, the most convenient route.

All would have been well if, in this case, the driver had said something like "the direct route has very heavy traffic/roadworks/is a bugger at rush hour. It will be quicker/it will cost you less if we take the coast road", or words to that effect. He'd then be squarely within paragraph (b) (assuming the passenger accepted his advice, of course).

In fact he took the alternative route without consulting the passenger, and defended his choice by arguing that it was the shortest route in time, and therefore fell under paragraph (a). He was successful.

Which is great for him. But the upshot is that taxi drivers can (without saying anything to the passenger) generally take whatever route they want/they think they can get away with, and defend their choice by saying that they thought it would be quicker than the direct route. The onus will be on the regulator to prove that it would not have been quicker , which is generally going to be difficult-to-impossible. So in the long run this may not benefit taxi users.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

There isn't an "always shortest route" rule.

The rule is that (except where the passenger dictates another route) the driver must take:

(a) the shortest route, where practicable, or

(b) with the consent of the passenger, the most convenient route.

All would have been well if, in this case, the driver had said something like "the direct route has very heavy traffic/roadworks/is a bugger at rush hour. It will be quicker/it will cost you less if we take the coast road", or words to that effect. He'd then be squarely within paragraph (b) (assuming the passenger accepted his advice, of course).

In fact he took the alternative route without consulting the passenger, and defended his choice by arguing that it was the shortest route in time, and therefore fell under paragraph (a). He was successful.

Which is great for him. But the upshot is that taxi drivers can (without saying anything to the passenger) generally take whatever route they want/they think they can get away with, and defend their choice by saying that they thought it would be quicker than the direct route. The onus will be on the regulator to prove that it would not have been quicker , which is generally going to be difficult-to-impossible. So in the long run this may not benefit taxi users.

If a taxi driver asked me the route I wanted to take in Dublin I generally wouldn't have a clue and it would show and I would feel it was more likely he'd then take the piss.
Are there crooked drivers? Of course. But how many would take a chance for a euro or two on an airport run? Aside from anything else if a fare would be the same on two routes for the same journey but one is shorter on time the driver would logically choose that one. Odds are that could increase distance but not increase the fare.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Peregrinus wrote: »

There isn't an "always shortest route" rule.

The rule is that (except where the passenger dictates another route) the driver must take:

(a) the shortest route, where practicable, or

(b) with the consent of the passenger, the most convenient route.

All would have been well if, in this case, the driver had said something like "the direct route has very heavy traffic/roadworks/is a bugger at rush hour. It will be quicker/it will cost you less if we take the coast road", or words to that effect. He'd then be squarely within paragraph (b) (assuming the passenger accepted his advice, of course).

In fact he took the alternative route without consulting the passenger, and defended his choice by arguing that it was the shortest route in time, and therefore fell under paragraph (a). He was successful.

Which is great for him. But the upshot is that taxi drivers can (without saying anything to the passenger) generally take whatever route they want/they think they can get away with, and defend their choice by saying that they thought it would be quicker than the direct route. The onus will be on the regulator to prove that it would not have been quicker , which is generally going to be difficult-to-impossible. So in the long run this may not benefit taxi users.

There’s no change to the general law here. The NTA specifically lost the case because the longer route was less costly. If it had been more costly then they would have won

Peregrinus

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

There’s no change to the general law here. The NTA specifically lost the case because the longer route was less costly. If it had been more costly then they would have won

There's a change to the understanding of the law. The law has always been that you must use the shortest route, unless with the consent of the passenger you use a more convenient route. What this case has established is that "shortest" doesn't necessarily mean "shortest in distance".

But it's wrong to say that the rule now prioritises the least costly route. There is no sense of the word "short" which means "least costly". The defendant argued that the "shortest route" could mean "shortest in time", and he won. On the facts of this particular case the shortest in time route was also the cheaper route, but note that this won't always be the case.

A taxi driver can now take you by the quickest route even if it will cost you more, and he doesn't have to discuss that with you or get your agreement.

punisher5112

Simple fix for all this GPS tracking in each taxi.

PARlance

punisher5112 wrote: »

Simple fix for all this GPS tracking in each taxi.

I can't see any issue with that.

Peregrinus

GPS tracking doesn't easily establish what a journey costs. More to the point, it can't establish what the alternative journey would have cost, or how long it would have taken, which is what a prosecution would have to be based on.

punisher5112

Peregrinus wrote: »

GPS tracking doesn't easily establish what a journey costs. More to the point, it can't establish what the alternative journey would have cost, or how long it would have taken, which is what a prosecution would have to be based on.

It would be a similar system set up to bus and could be linked with live info to avoid traffic and speed up journey times.

It's a widespread issue and also dealing in cash there is a huge issue there for messing about also.

I get his logic. Fair play to the NTA for actually picking cabbies up on this though.

I got in a cab in Temple Bar with some English friends and they asked to go to Bow Lane restaurant.

It wasn't until I noticed we were going past Vicar Street and i asked the driver where the **** was he going that he actually realised he'd been caught out.

redcup342

Happens everywhere though, took a Taxi from German Airport.

Driving towards city the Taxi driver asks where I'm from, I say Ireland, switches lane for the City Center.

Asks me if I'm there for Party or Work

"No I live here"

Indicates and goes back into the lane for the Tunnel (Around 20 minutes faster)

I try and only use the MyTaxi APP now, at least you can see reviews of the driver before they pick you up.

:rolleyes:

Taxi drivers are on the whole pretty good in Ireland though, never had any mad experiences with being taken on a complete rip off.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Boom_Bap

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No it's not.

Up the back of the airport, across the M50 and down to the Mun.
Less traffic lights than the old airport road, and there are speed bumps in NorthWood that slow you down.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Boom_Bap

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah, I had a row with a taxi driver one time when he was trying to take me that way. He was telling me it's much quicker. It's not and it covers alot more ground.
I think they try that route though because they are annoyed with the short fare.

ohnonotgmail

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Yeah, I had a row with a taxi driver one time when he was trying to take me that way. He was telling me it's much quicker. It's not and it covers alot more ground.
I think they try that route though because they are annoyed with the short fare.

going by the m50 is longer by 2.7km but takes about the same time.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

AlanG

Having regularly had a taxi driver friend drop me into the city from the airport (for free) he would nearly always take me the R139 as it is quicker at most times. The NTA inspector should never have taken this case as there is so little difference in the routes. Most taxi drivers are decent enough people. Hopefully the driver gets his costs covered.

Fred Swanson

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Depends on traffic at the time.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

diomed

I am with the taxi driver on this.

When I was working in the airport I once drove my sister from the southside to the airport as she was getting a flight.
She complained I was going the wrong way.
After about 7,500 journeys from south Dublin to and from the airport I thought I was going the right way, possibly not the shortest way, but certainly the quickest way.