n97 mini wrote: » Yep, all true. As there are no Green or Purple cabs it's chose the maximum rate or get the bus or be collected.
trellheim wrote: » they are not required to, you can walk up to any cab in the airport and negotiate a fare if I recall.
Cookie_Monster wrote: » there are set max rates. With so many individual operators rather than companies there's no incentive for an individual to offer a cheaper rates, they just won't have the marketing and availability to make it work. If there were larger branded companies and everyone knew that "The Bright Green painted Cab Co" was 10% cheaper than "Purple Cabs" they'd definitely try and hail only a green car...
n97 mini wrote: » Virtually all taxis now charge the same rates. In any other industry this would be considered cartel-like behaviour, as it results in no meaningful competition.
Virtually all taxis now charge the same rates
end of the road wrote: » uber is a taxi, so you would be going from 1 taxi to another. uber can and will form a monopoly, what exists now isn't a monopoly as there are thousands of taxi operators from self-employed to companies meaning a huge amount of competition.
usernamegoes wrote: » I'll let VC funds pay for my trips and if they run out of money and fares go up such that taxis are cheaper I might go back to taxis if I thought the value was bad with uber. It can't form a monopoly. What exists now is a monopoly.
n97 mini wrote: » Let the market decide. If it's not worth doing no-one will do it.
circular flexing wrote: » The reason Uber is cheaper is that it's currently being bankrolled by huge amounts of venture capital so can afford to eat some losses. Just look at the figures herehttps://www.crunchbase.com/organization/uber Latest figures have the company losing more than $1 billion per quarterhttps://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/11/ubers-crisis-deepens-with-record-quarterly-loss/ This is obviously unsustainable. Their end game is a monopoly (just like what traditional taxis had) so they can better control the fares charged (guess which direction they will go if Uber has a monopoly) which is why they hate competition so much. The other way for them to become sustainable is driverless cars but that's still some way off (imo) The people who have invested in Uber aren't doing so out of pure kindness - they did so because they want to make money and believe in Uber's model.
Cookie_Monster wrote: » and oversight.
ted1 wrote: » 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
markodaly wrote: » 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?
markodaly wrote: » You wrote about the entitlement of the Taxi drivers when you talk about cheaper fares harming someones livelihood.
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.
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.
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.
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.
