Uber

I should add in my own personal experience I don't use taxis in Ireland as I think they're too expensive, and aren't good value for money. I see Uber/Lyft more of an alternative to public transport.

E.g. I occasionally go for a beer in the next village. The bus costs €2.10. A taxi costs €10. I never get a taxi home as a result. But if I could get an Uber/Lyft home for €5 I'd use it regularly.

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

Some people prefer taxis under the current system, and that's fine. Allowing UberX/Lyft type services means more choice, but don't deny us who would like to use Uber that choice... you can still use your taxi.

nobody is denying you the choice to use uber though. what's being said is that ubber will have to abide by the regulations set down in relation to taxi services if it wants to operate in this country, given that it is ultimately a taxi service. the regulations shouldn't be relaxed for it unless we relax the regulations for all taxis. uber is not special and shouldn't have specialised legislation tailored for it.

end of the road wrote: »

nobody is denying you the choice to use uber though. what's being said is that ubber will have to abide by the regulations set down in relation to taxi services if it wants to operate in this country, given that it is ultimately a taxi service. the regulations shouldn't be relaxed for it unless we relax the regulations for all taxis. uber is not special and shouldn't have specialised legislation tailored for it.

You know as well as I do that by forcing Uber (and Lyft etc) to operate under taxi laws means there is no differentiation between taxis and Uber. I call an Uber in Ireland and I get a taxi. I don't want a taxi! Taxis operate in what the competition authority (or whatever they're called now) would call cartell-like behaviour. i.e. there is no difference in price between any of them. Imagine if all supermarkets charged exactly the same price for their goods.

Given that "crowd sourcing" is the way forward, blocking UberX from operating like it does in other countries not only deprives small local communities of a valuable service, it also stops ordinary working people from making an extra few bob, and makes Ireland look like it's still in the dark ages, which it is in a lot of ways.

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

You know as well as I do that by forcing Uber (and Lyft etc) to operate under taxi laws means there is no differentiation between taxis and Uber.

ultimately there is no differentiation between them in terms of what type of service they are anyway. they are both taxis, uber and lift just have a different method of operation.

n97 mini wrote: »

I call an Uber in Ireland and I get a taxi. I don't want a taxi! Taxis operate in what the competition authority (or whatever they're called now) would call cartell-like behaviour. i.e. there is no difference in price between any of them. Imagine if all supermarkets charged exactly the same price for their goods. Given that "crowd sourcing" is the way forward, blocking UberX from operating like it does in other countries not only deprives small local communities of a valuable service, it also stops ordinary working people from making an extra few bob, and makes Ireland look like it's still in the dark ages, which it is in a lot of ways.

no, it doesn't make ireland look like it is in the dark ages or deprive local communities of a valuable service. if there is money to be made in such services then they will be operated. working people would be deprived of an extra few bob for many reasons, it's no good reason for uber to be exempt from legislation for it's industry, the taxi industry.
what you are arguing for here is for uber to be made a special case, it's not a special case. it's a taxi service with a different method of operation to indigenous taxi services.

Cookie_Monster

usernamegoes wrote: »

Well then they're breaking the law. No one is arguing for no insurance. Have a law which requires proper insurance. I don't see the problem

but there is no such law in Ireland, you can't have a standard private policy on a vehicle and use that same vehicle for uber as it makes the private policy void and you are therefore uninsured all the time.

n97 mini wrote: »

I should add in my own personal experience I don't use taxis in Ireland as I think they're too expensive, and aren't good value for money. I see Uber/Lyft more of an alternative to public transport.

E.g. I occasionally go for a beer in the next village. The bus costs €2.10. A taxi costs €10. I never get a taxi home as a result. But if I could get an Uber/Lyft home for €5 I'd use it regularly.

To use your own words back at you - where does your sense of entitlement come from that you think you deserve cheap fares at the expense of someone else's livelihood?

If the bus trip costs €2.10 then €10 for a private hire vehicle seems about right considering. We shouldn't be encouraging the use of inefficient transport modes like taxis by making them competitive price-wise with buses.

howiya

Phil.x wrote: »

Yes well we're back to the days of long walks or long waits for taxis at the weekend, so bring it on I say.

And it's not just the weekend, the company I work for were told by the taxi company they use it's very hard to guarantee a cab Mon-Fri, so give hour's if not days notice, there's just too much work on the street they were told.

I get a taxi home from work every night Monday to Friday and don't have any issues getting a taxi and only give a couple of minutes notice at a time

Losty Dublin

n97 mini wrote: »

I should add in my own personal experience I don't use taxis in Ireland as I think they're too expensive, and aren't good value for money. I see Uber/Lyft more of an alternative to public transport.

E.g. I occasionally go for a beer in the next village. The bus costs €2.10. A taxi costs €10. I never get a taxi home as a result. But if I could get an Uber/Lyft home for €5 I'd use it regularly.

So basically your argument boils down to as follows....

I don't use taxis at all. Let's change the law entirely so I can save a fiver going to the pub even though it's cheaper to walk, get the bus, drink closer to or at home, or even to take the pledge.

usernamegoes

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

but there is no such law in Ireland, you can't have a standard private policy on a vehicle and use that same vehicle for uber as it makes the private policy void and you are therefore uninsured all the time.

You do understand that we know that it can't be done at present, we are saying this is what should happen. A change to allow cars to be used for hire but such cars would require insurance that would cover them all the time. Ride sharing insurance is available in other countries and I can't see why insurers wouldn't offer it here too. And if no insurers do then I suppose then the model won't work or someone will come up with another idea. But I can't see why insurers here wouldn't do it.

Uber then also insure the trip in case for some reason the driver's insurance doesn't. This in fact is a higher standard than taxis. If I am in a taxi which is illegal or perhaps loaned to someone else and we're in a crash then the insurer won't pay out but if I am in an uber and the driver's insurer won't pay out then uber's insurance covers it.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

but there is no such law in Ireland, you can't have a standard private policy on a vehicle and use that same vehicle for uber as it makes the private policy void and you are therefore uninsured all the time.

Ride sharing insurance policies didn't exist in the US before ride sharing became the norm, now they do. The car insurance market will move with the times.

MJohnston wrote: »

To use your own words back at you - where does your sense of entitlement come from that you think you deserve cheap fares at the expense of someone else's livelihood?

If the bus trip costs €2.10 then €10 for a private hire vehicle seems about right considering. We shouldn't be encouraging the use of inefficient transport modes like taxis by making them competitive price-wise with buses.

I think you are missing the point. If taxi's became more affordable, then there would be an increase in volume. Think about the airline industry, how many people fly no compared to the 80's?

No is one is 'entitled' to earn a wage just cause, that wage has to add some value to what ever activity they are performing. Again, I heard all these arguments in the 90's when taxi drivers were giving out yarns about deregulation. They viewed it that they had a human right to charge customers more than what was fair and closed entry into the business off to others, by restricting licenses. I trust no one is arguing that they want to see those days back?

Essentially long term the taxi industry as we know it is dead, as autonomous cars will see to that. This will lead to a sea change in how we view public transport and and owning cars.

end of the road

markodaly wrote: »

I think you are missing the point. If taxi's became more affordable, then there would be an increase in volume. Think about the airline industry, how many people fly no compared to the 80's?

No is one is 'entitled' to earn a wage just cause, that wage has to add some value to what ever activity they are performing. Again, I heard all these arguments in the 90's when taxi drivers were giving out yarns about deregulation. They viewed it that they had a human right to charge customers more than what was fair and closed entry into the business off to others, by restricting licenses. I trust no one is arguing that they want to see those days back?

Essentially long term the taxi industry as we know it is dead, as autonomous cars will see to that. This will lead to a sea change in how we view public transport and and owning cars.

high volume public transport such as bus and rail based solutions will continue to be the main stay of public transport and will be the options most pushed for as it will still be efficient compared to car based public transport, whether ride share/automated cars. automated cars will eventually replace current taxis but bus and rail will always be more space efficient and consume less resources.

end of the road wrote: »

high volume public transport such as bus and rail based solutions will continue to be the main stay of public transport and will be the options most pushed for as it will still be efficient compared to car based public transport, whether ride share/automated cars. automated cars will eventually replace current taxis but bus and rail will always be more space efficient and consume less resources.

Yes, I agree. There will still be a need for high volume transport methods. I see buses to be more frequent as it will get very cheap to run them. They will be powered by battery, no need for drivers so the cost to run and maintain them will drop substantially.

markodaly wrote: »

I think you are missing the point. If taxi's became more affordable, then there would be an increase in volume. Think about the airline industry, how many people fly no compared to the 80's?

No is one is 'entitled' to earn a wage just cause, that wage has to add some value to what ever activity they are performing. Again, I heard all these arguments in the 90's when taxi drivers were giving out yarns about deregulation. They viewed it that they had a human right to charge customers more than what was fair and closed entry into the business off to others, by restricting licenses. I trust no one is arguing that they want to see those days back?

Essentially long term the taxi industry as we know it is dead, as autonomous cars will see to that. This will lead to a sea change in how we view public transport and and owning cars.

Moving those goalposts yet again - you're being annoyingly disingenuous about what points I'm trying to make and then arguing with yourself about things I didn't say. For example, where did I say taxi drivers were entitled to a wage?

You wrote about the entitlement of the Taxi drivers when you talk about cheaper fares harming someones livelihood. Did you oppose the deregulation of the Taxi industry in 2000 ?

markodaly wrote: »

You wrote about the entitlement of the Taxi drivers when you talk about cheaper fares harming someones livelihood.

No, I didn't. Can you please stop making things up?

Why mention this then though?

To use your own words back at you - where does your sense of entitlement come from that you think you deserve cheap fares at the expense of someone else's livelihood?

trellheim

Are we back to Uber shill land again ? Lets face it if they thought there was competition to be had they'd be in here but those nasty requirements for PSV and insurance mean a level playing field But do we we see them in taxi hack or limo .... no.

markodaly wrote: »

Why mention this then though?

Because that's simply the flip side of what n97 was saying, if you think you deserve cheaper fares, the balance of that is that taxi drivers earn less money. Nowhere did I argue that taxi drivers are entitled to that money.

MJohnston wrote: »

Because that's simply the flip side of what n97 was saying, if you think you deserve cheaper fares, the balance of that is that taxi drivers earn less money. Nowhere did I argue that taxi drivers are entitled to that money.

It is not a zero sum game. Are airlines making less money now than the 80's when airfares were much much higher?

strandroad

markodaly wrote: »

It is not a zero sum game. Are airlines making less money now than the 80's when airfares were much much higher?

No because trips increased exponentially to make up for it. But if you apply it to cars you run out of roads. We are gridlocked as we are. Dreams of Uber just point to the fact that we don't have a mature public transport system.

Cookie_Monster

usernamegoes wrote: »

You do understand that we know that it can't be done at present, we are saying this is what should happen. A change to allow cars to be used for hire but such cars would require insurance that would cover them all the time. Ride sharing insurance is available in other countries and I can't see why insurers wouldn't offer it here too.

markodaly wrote: »

Ride sharing insurance policies didn't exist in the US before ride sharing became the norm, now they do. The car insurance market will move with the times.

In Ireland

Yeah right, the same country that massively penalises you for a 15+ year old vehicle, or if you dare to have a 2L+ engine, or if you're male or under 40

Don't make me laugh, it'll never happen in Ireland in an affordable manner.

strandroad wrote: »

No because trips increased exponentially to make up for it. But if you apply it to cars you run out of roads. We are gridlocked as we are. Dreams of Uber just point to the fact that we don't have a mature public transport system.

Rural Ireland for one is not gridlocked. A friend lives in a small town in Wexford. They had two hackneys as that's all the town could support. Now they have nothing.

usernamegoes

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

In Ireland
Yeah right, the same country that massively penalises you for a 15+ year old vehicle, or if you dare to have a 2L+ engine, or if you're male or under 40

Don't make me laugh, it'll never happen in Ireland in an affordable manner.

Well then if you're right you have nothing to fear the model will fail, no one is suggesting they should be allowed operate without insurance. If you're certain insurance companies won't offer it then what's the harm?

ted1

n97 mini wrote: »

I should add in my own personal experience I don't use taxis in Ireland as I think they're too expensive, and aren't good value for money. I see Uber/Lyft more of an alternative to public transport.

E.g. I occasionally go for a beer in the next village. The bus costs €2.10. A taxi costs €10. I never get a taxi home as a result. But if I could get an Uber/Lyft home for €5 I'd use it regularly.

Is it a bus eireann bus or another bus service using the PSO which we susidise.

How far is the village ? Petrol costs in my Ford Focus are about 1.50 per 10km. Add on the cost of the car, driving from last fare to you, Uber’s high % fee, maintenance of car, costs of car. 5 Euro isn’t a reasonable fare.