The 'Drink Link'

bk

Deleted User wrote: »

What you are talking about still requires a psv licence and the appropriate insurance. This would not change. Normal insurance does not cover the use of a private car in this manner in Ireland

However Uber does cover insurance in most countries and could do so in Ireland too.

It is self-insurance in a similar manner to what Dublin Bus do.

The government could also create a scheme to cover the insurance costs for people willing to drive in rural areas. Just need to get the PSV license then, making it easier to be just a part time job.

Non of this is unusual, we had hackneys operating here like this for decades.

n97 mini

Deleted User wrote: »

What you are talking about still requires a psv licence and the appropriate insurance. This would not change. Normal insurance does not cover the use of a private car in this manner in Ireland

As already stated Uber self insures. As things stand a psv licence is cheap but the associated insurance is not, which leads to high fares, which in turn puts people off using a hackney/taxi service.

So the solution is either (a) get Uber to pay for high insurance and to only be allowed service small towns and villages where there isn't even enough trade to keep a local hackney cab in business or (b) get the govt to pay for the insurance for part time drivers who now have a psv licence, free insurance and all in the hopes they won't go into the cities to make a load more cash

Good luck with that

n97 mini

Uber doesn't pay for insurance. Like Dublin Bus etc, it self insures. That is, it has deep enough pockets to cover any claims. So the argument that it there isn't enough business to keep a hackney going, which has to cover his/her own insurance, isn't comparable.

(No-one suggested your option b)

howiya

n97 mini wrote: »

Uber doesn't pay for insurance. Like Dublin Bus etc, it self insures. That is, it has deep enough pockets to cover any claims. So the argument that it there isn't enough business to keep a hackney going, which has to cover his/her own insurance, isn't comparable.

(No-one suggested your option b)

If Uber have deep enough pockets maybe they could purchase the appropriate insurance policies for drivers and then they would be able to operate here in the manner you want them to.

n97 mini

howiya wrote: »

If Uber have deep enough pockets maybe they could purchase the appropriate insurance policies for drivers and then they would be able to operate here in the manner you want them to.

I don't think you understand. Uber, like Dublin Bus, don't need to purchase insurance policies. They insure themselves via their deep pockets, just as Dublin Bus does.

howiya

n97 mini wrote: »

I don't think you understand. Uber, like Dublin Bus, don't need to purchase insurance policies. They insure themselves via their deep pockets, just as Dublin Bus does.

I understand perfectly.

At present, under current regulations, a potential Uber driver would require an appropriate insurance policy and a PSV license to offer their services to the man/woman on his/her way home from the pub. Uber self insuring doesn't meet the criteria,

Self insurance is nothing to do with deep pockets. Dublin Bus certainly don't have deep pockets.

If their pockets are that deep they can afford the required policies and start offering lifts in rural Ireland tomorrow

bk

howiya wrote: »

Self insurance is nothing to do with deep pockets. Dublin Bus certainly don't have deep pockets.

Dublin Bus have deep enough pockets that they are sure they can afford to pay out on any claims and they also use the large numbers of cameras on their buses, along with their own legal team to fight all claims in court and not just pay out like most insurance companies do.

It all ends up costing them less then paying an insurance company.

howiya wrote: »

If their pockets are that deep they can afford the required policies and start offering lifts in rural Ireland tomorrow

Uber in the US partner with a third party insurance company that fully covers their drivers while they are online working for Uber:

https://www.uber.com/newsroom/an-update-on-insurance/

Note interestingly they use different companies in different states in the US. So following this pattern they could do a similar arrangement for drivers here in Ireland with the usual insurance companies.

Or in the long run, Uber is such a big company, they could literally set up their own insurance company and use that to insure drivers, in the end it comes down to which is cheaper for them.

BTW non of this is unusual, big car rental fleets like Hertz, etc. all run their own "insurance companies" and self insure.

howiya

bk wrote: »

Dublin Bus have deep enough pockets that they are sure they can afford to pay out on any claims and they also use the large numbers of cameras on their buses, along with their own legal team to fight all claims in court and not just pay out like most insurance companies do.

It all ends up costing them less then paying an insurance company.



Uber in the US partner with a third party insurance company that fully covers their drivers while they are online working for Uber:

https://www.uber.com/newsroom/an-update-on-insurance/

Note interestingly they use different companies in different states in the US. So following this pattern they could do a similar arrangement for drivers here in Ireland with the usual insurance companies.

Or in the long run, Uber is such a big company, they could literally set up their own insurance company and use that to insure drivers, in the end it comes down to which is cheaper for them.

BTW non of this is unusual, big car rental fleets like Hertz, etc. all run their own "insurance companies" and self insure.

I agree self insurance is not unusual. Many small businesses are going down that road now due to what they see as the excessive cost of insurance policies. So it's nothing to do with deep pockets.

The point here is that Uber could operate in rural Ireland in the morning if they obtained the appropriate policy for anyone wanting to drive with them. They are choosing not to and instead want the Government/NTA to change the rules for them.

drunkmonkey

howiya wrote: »

The point here is that Uber could operate in rural Ireland in the morning if they obtained the appropriate policy for anyone wanting to drive with them. They are choosing not to and instead want the Government/NTA to change the rules for them.

What do they want the government to change? I thought they just banned the service.

_Kaiser_

As I said over in the AH thread on the subject, this is a farcical idea clearly aimed at the rural vote for the election I reckon we'll be having this year.
Why the taxpayer should fund a booze bus for those who live in rural areas is beyond me, as is the nonsense that the pub is their only social outlet and the drink-driving limits are too harsh.

Here's a novel idea! If you don't have a lift arranged, don't drink and just drive home! Time to grow up and be responsible! If that doesn't work for you.. move somewhere where there are alternatives

We really need to get beyond the drinking culture in this country.

Wanderer78

_Kaiser_ wrote:

Here's a novel idea! If you don't have a lift arranged, don't drink and just drive home! Time to grow up and be responsible! If that doesn't work for you.. move somewhere where there are alternatives

Strangely enough, moving isn't as straight forward as some seem to think so

drunkmonkey

Another two fingers to everyone in the countryside, have ye a ticket system going or something.

schemingbohemia

Uber self-insuring would require a change in legislation - not likely to happen
Uber setting up their own insurance company - not going to happen, would need a massive amount of up-front money to cover potential claims

CeilingFly

With a little luck the people of South dublin will get rid of Shane Ross at next election. Frankly he is full of hot air and hair-brained ideas without an iota of a clue as to how things work in real life.

There is a dreadfully simple solution to this which could be piloted for very small money.

This problem with the proposed system is the lack of flexibility - people will want to travel at different times and in all different directions. You still have the issue of people walking on dark roads from the stopping point to their door.

Solutions

Provide insured vehicles and have people apply for operating them in specific local areas with various regulations applying.

A basic "service fee" would be provided.

A maximum charge of €5 per journey (or maybe return journey) allowable and have that the distance of travel be xxkm and the driver must take to that maximum if required. This prevents misuse but also ensures its affordable


Plenty of semi retired rural people would love to provide such a service and would not be in it to make a huge profit - you could even have driving co-ops with 3/4 drivers covering 2 cars in an area.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The Uber argument is a fallacy

If such a market existed in rural areas there would already be taxis and hackney's servicing

Where there is a large enough cluster of population this is the reality

The issue with rural Ireland is the one off housing all over the place instead of consolidation in towns and villages.

Just imagine how vibrant rural Ireland would be now if all the one off houses built in the last 20 years were instead built in the immediate vicinity of towns and villages instead of all over the place

That's rural Irelands biggest issue

Might work if rural planning allowed for estates that were not replicas of estates in the cities.
There is no reason for terraced housing in a small village estate. Make estates with detached houses on say 1/5 acre, 12-20 houses with a single entrance to the estate off the main road. Put that on the outskirts of a village and people will purchase.



That is an extreme upper I admit but it would move those one offs into a single concentrated area, and not strewn along the road.


At least avoid the curent trend of putting so many houses (in a country estate) that each house has no garden, room to park one car, and no green space for kids to play.

That is how to develop ghost estates as they have all the drawbacks of city living but none of the benefits (other than somewhat lower cost). They drive people to one off building

Del2005

CeilingFly wrote: »

oads from the stopping point to their door.

Solutions

Provide insured vehicles and have people apply for operating them in specific local areas with various regulations applying.

A basic "service fee" would be provided.

A maximum charge of €5 per journey (or maybe return journey) allowable and have that the distance of travel be xxkm and the driver must take to that maximum if required. This prevents misuse but also ensures its affordable


Plenty of semi retired rural people would love to provide such a service and would not be in it to make a huge profit - you could even have driving co-ops with 3/4 drivers covering 2 cars in an area.

That sounds like a highly subsidised taxi. Why should the taxpayer provide a subsidised taxi to people who are drunk in a rural location but not an urban one? It's even cheaper than a return on Dublin Bus which carries thousands a day and you want to subsidise drunks!!

There's no solution to rural transport in this country as the population is too spread out

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Might work if rural planning allowed for estates that were not replicas of estates in the cities.
There is no reason for terraced housing in a small village estate. Make estates with detached houses on say 1/5 acre, 12-20 houses with a single entrance to the estate off the main road. Put that on the outskirts of a village and people will purchase.



That is an extreme upper I admit but it would move those one offs into a single concentrated area, and not strewn along the road.


At least avoid the curent trend of putting so many houses (in a country estate) that each house has no garden, room to park one car, and no green space for kids to play.

That is how to develop ghost estates as they have all the drawbacks of city living but none of the benefits (other than somewhat lower cost). They drive people to one off building

That has less to do with planning and more to do with developers cramming as much in to increase their profit margin

dublinbuster

As a working man paying taxes, i can only afford to go out to the pub a few times a year, does anyone else find it farcical that the FTP will be accepted on these drink links, seeing as most are held by people on welfare?

CeilingFly

Del2005 wrote: »

That sounds like a highly subsidised taxi. Why should the taxpayer provide a subsidised taxi to people who are drunk in a rural location but not an urban one? It's even cheaper than a return on Dublin Bus which carries thousands a day and you want to subsidise drunks!!

There's no solution to rural transport in this country as the population is too spread out

And the bus service isn't subsidised?

And the Dublin bus service is not subsidised????

Let's stop the sh1te about "my taxes" - most people pay very little tax in relation to the services and payments they receive.

Yes, my proposal is a subsidised taxi service for rural areas where it is uneconomic for a commercial taxi service. It would be a lot cheaper and far more flexible than the current system.

Embossy

The problem in this country is our scattered population living in one off rural housing. The reality is that we will never have a functioning rural public transport service due to bad planning.