MJohnston wrote: » Are you really this naive about Uber flouting regulations? I linked you to a whole Wikipedia article about it.
makeorbrake wrote: » What are the main cost-saving elements for them in terms of regulations?
As regards on-boarding people, sure they need plenty of VC money in that race. I already find that the uber algorithm has to be watched in the market I'm in - and I always check with cabify to get the correctly priced fare.
Other than that, I like the idea that someone can decide to go out for a few hours and work uber as and when it suits them. There's a lot of value in that for people.
It makes more sense to me that they would spend much less time 'driving around' than a taxi. Perhaps its the market i'm in, but every uber i use here is accepting their next job the minute I get out of the car.
makeorbrake wrote: » Don't be an obnoxious knob. I simply asked someone what the main cost saving elements were in terms of regulations. If you don't want to answer that, then don't - but don't come on here with posts that don't advance the discussion in any way, shape or form.
MJohnston wrote: » [*]their "dynamic pricing" model which frequently rips off passengers (this is one area where regulation is 100% protecting customers)
Stephen15 wrote: » As far I'm concerned Uber won't do anything to reduce traffic congestion in fact would likely make it even worse as people who would otherwise use public transport may see Uber as a viable alternative especially if they don't own a car as it has done in some cities.
strandroad wrote: » Why do you think that Uber, a famously lax company will provide any of this? If a regulated taxi breaks the rules they can lose their license. If a Uber driver breaks the rules they'll be dumped from the app that's all. Uber took off abroad where there were no decent taxis and no apps/card payments. In Dublin the last thing we need is rando cars clogging the city cruising for business.
Bray Head wrote: » Actually a lot of my journeys involve collecting/dropping kids and grandparents who don't drive. I have to go from A (where I live) where the real journey is B to C, and then I have to get back to A again. With Uber (especially if self-driving cars come in) journeys are generally only B to C. This should on balance reduce the number of journeys.
Stephen15 wrote: » I think we'll waiting a while longer before self driving cars fully come in as the norm. It's a bridge that can be crossed when we come to it. Even if self driving vehicles become a reality which they won't anytime soon public transport should still be prioritised.
Bray Head wrote: » My point still stands without self-driving cars.
Stephen15 wrote: » That may be the case but if Uber was allowed here many may find it a more attractive option than public transport which shouldn't be allowed.
Eric Cartman wrote: » public transport is always the most unatractive option, its slow, smelly, full of junkies and doesnt bring you exactly to and from where you want to go. The only advantage it has is that its cheaper, Uber would encourage a lot of people off it.
Stephen15 wrote: » Despite the fact a lot of those are misconceptions that are untrue. It's a sustainable transport method meaning it takes up a lot less road space, is more environmentally friendly and reduces congestion. We have bus lanes to improve journey times and Luas or Dart are often quicker than driving into the city centre. People will start to use Uber as an unsustainable alternative.
strandroad wrote: » It might only be B to C for you, but the Uber car comes from their A to collect you and then goes to D to collect another passenger. All in all they are still on the road even if you're not on board.
Bray Head wrote: » Uber is in some ways complementary to public transport. Most train stations (inter-city as well as suburban) are really badly served by connecting buses.
Stephen15 wrote: » And that can be done by improving bus access to railway stations
Bray Head wrote: » Of course it can. But in over 30 years of DART, Dublin Bus have failed abysmally at integrating with it.
MJohnston wrote: » I don't think this is true at all. Contactless payments? Adopted very rapidly, including Apple/Google Pay. Taxi apps? Hailo was a massive success very quickly. Deliveroo has been a huge success too. Dublin Bikes became a global model for how to successfully implement a bike-rental scheme. Mobile phone networks in Ireland are far more generous with their data plans than a lot of other countries - go and compare with USA for example. Intercom? A massively successful Irish tech startup. Daft really changed how the property market worked in Ireland long before many other countries started doing similar things (when I lived in California in 2013 they were still using Craigslist for rentals ffs).
markodaly wrote: » Just because we use contactless payments sometimes, does not mean we are tech savvy as a nation. Just think of the public perception of Uber and Airbnb? Usually very negative, without much foundation. We as a nation do not like change too much.
et the tech scene in Ireland is dominated by multinationals, very little employment in homegrown startups.
Bray Head wrote: » Uber rides are not massively subsidised by investors. There are about four billion Uber rides per year. Uber's annual losses in 2017 were $4.5 billion...... They are still in start-up mode however, so are in the business of building market share. They are also spending huge amounts on R&D that a mature company does not need to..
Losty Dublin wrote: » Start up business. Losses of $4.5 billion. In a service industry that has existed for well over a century all over the world. This would suggest that they really don't know what they are doing.
trellheim wrote: » this is not true. All the Irish techs are recruiting.
