makeorbrake wrote: » I'd imagine that needs to be assessed on a market by market basis. For example, what laws are they flouting in the U.S.?
If that's the case and you feel that their proposition is unsustainable, then you have little to worry about as they will simply cease to exist (if the model actually is unsustainable..).
punisher5112 wrote: » Straight up there may well be better drivers and less dangerous criminals doing it as many taxis are.
makeorbrake wrote: » right, but are these taxis with taxi licenses?
MJohnston wrote: » Unfounded nonsense.
makeorbrake wrote: » It's futile to stand in the way of tech. Regulate of course but a blanket bank like we have here - i'm sorry but protectionism is never the way to go. It means we will always be late to the party and the whole country suffers as a consequence. I like not having to carry cash where I am. In the country I'm in right now, dodgy **** is likely to happen in a taxi. Uber is electronic meaning drivers can be traced.
punisher5112 wrote: » Really.... Many many many actually convicted criminals driving around.. Some have many plates also. It's totally fine if you don't believe me but I've known some and come across others over the years.
"MJohnston wrote: » The Uber model that you're presumably referring to is the unlicensed ('peer to peer') ride-sharing that allows any random person to become an Uber driver. There are loads of reasons why this model is much more suitable to somewhere like San Francisco than somewhere like Dublin.
Nermal wrote: » Such as?
MJohnston wrote: » I don't really care - what I'm calling unfounded nonsense is your presumption that app-run taxis services would be any better.
punisher5112 wrote: » When did I say they would be???
Straight up there may well be better drivers and less dangerous criminals doing it as many taxis are.
punisher5112 wrote: » Great argument that you " dont really care" Thanks for the input..... I believe they should be all vetted, rigorously tested, have better testing on driving and be held to account. A proper team checking and keeping them in line and by God have them actually having working brake lights and dipped beams.
MJohnston wrote: » What. Relevance. Is. That. To. This. Topic.
MJohnston wrote: » Right here you plum:
MJohnston wrote: » Jesus, what a fücking classic thread.
MJohnston wrote: » Here's one: taxis can use bus lanes.
Nermal wrote: » I’ll solve that one for you: neither Uber nor taxis should be allowed to use them.
markodaly wrote: » As I mentioned earlier, Uber is not ridesharing. We do not do ride sharing in Ireland at all. In fact, we as a nation are a really inward looking when it comes to new innovations and tech. The Asians **** all over us in that regard.
punisher5112 wrote: » I believe they should be all vetted, rigorously tested, have better testing on driving and be held to account. A proper team checking and keeping them in line and by God have them actually having working brake lights and dipped beams.
strandroad wrote: » Uber took off abroad where there were no decent taxis and no apps/card payments.
strandroad wrote: » In Dublin the last thing we need is rando cars clogging the city cruising for business.
makeorbrake wrote: » I don't agree with this - that somehow irish taxis are better. That's nonsense. Most markets now have taxis with the opportunity to use an app.
makeorbrake wrote: » They don't 'cruise' anywhere. They go directly from job to job.
strandroad wrote: » Not most cities, not in the US anyway. Some are still scrambling to get any decent taxi service and organise into an app service, ask some Americans for their horror stories.
strandroad wrote: » We take a lot of things for granted. They have 100-400k cities with no public transport at all for example. US is designed for people with their own cars, if you don't have one you're done. Hence their need for Uber.
strandroad wrote: » Not true, see New York and what happened there especially in Manhattan. See how many Ubers you see on the map at any given time in London too, they are not on the job, they are waiting for one.
makeorbrake wrote: » Of course the U.S. has no time for public transport. But why does this create the need for uber rather than taxis? Possibly because the former is a lot more efficient and more cost effective?
makeorbrake wrote: » That doesn't make much sense. An uber isn't going to go driving around touting for business. They wait for the next fare to pop up. A taxi on the other hand...
strandroad wrote: » Because Uber is so much cheaper; it saves on regulations, and the fares are massively subsidised by investors. You're not paying the real cost of your ride, VC pays a large part of it. That's why Uber it's burning so much cash. And it has a good app while they are still not standard for taxis.
strandroad wrote: » Of course they drive around, just look at your app in a proper Uber city and see them moving. There is nowhere for them to park for free in city centres so they keep cruising.