nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Uber

stonebob

Just back from London where I used Airbnb and Uber with great success......Uber was half the price of a taxi and there seemed to be one around every corner ..everyone loves them ..I know there's an argument about regulation of drivers but there's a lot of dodgy taxi drivers too just read the papers ...the drivers were polite ..spotless cars..and they don't tap on..

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

They can, for a 170 eur fee

Not without a potential uber driver having to go out and buy a specific type of vehicle, right?

Deleted User wrote: »

You have just described the situation for independent taxi drivers who can work when they please so it's not restricted or protected

See above.

end of the road

makeorbrake wrote: »

So 'thems the rules'? BS. Simplify the system and allow better utilisation of peoples time and the existing car stock.

If the tech can facilitate someone who wants to go out and work for a few hours or switch on their availability to accept a fare if they're going on a particular journey, they should be allowed to do so. Protectionism is negative and ultimately, it never wins out.

a taxi can work whichever hours the driver wants to work as long as they abide by the driving legal limits. the system is perfectly simple, and people can if they feel it is a good investment, get a taxi licence.
there is no protectionism here. just some simple basic rules. uber choose not to come here and abide by those rules, so they are responsible for shutting themselves out. if they want to come here then they can but they will be abiding by the rules. the rules will not be dumed down to suit them, as it should be.

makeorbrake wrote: »

The law of supply and demand is the best regulation. If there's enough, there won't be more on the streets than are needed.

I understand your point but I don't think the consideration of car-sharing services has any bearing on it....although it could help when used on a opportunist basis - but current regulation prevents this.

supply and demand is exactly what we have here in ireland.

end of the road

glasso wrote: »

Basically all people who aren't Taxi drivers or related to them would prefer to have the choice of an Uber service with say 30 t0 40 percent cheaper fares.

Taxi drivers will come up with any argument to keep them out.

Choice is better.

have you got a source for those claims? ideally a studdy to show that
1. that all people who aren't taxi drivers or relatives of taxi drivers would prefer an uber service. a service they are being prevented from having by the company they would like to be able to use, ironically.
2. that taxi drivers and their relatives want to keep uber out, and are coming up with all sorts of arguments to keep them out, when they are not being kept out, rather they are choosing to stay out.
there is plenty of choice in the taxi industry.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Sure - that's the protectionism - which is stifling progression and innovation - that we're talking about.

nope, just the law. if uber aren't willing to abide by our regulations then they are no loss. other taxi businesses are willing to do it, who are using similar tech.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Not without a potential uber driver having to go out and buy a specific type of vehicle, right?

See above.

they may have to buy a vehicle anyway. so why not one that is accessible to more people. more value for money in the long term. not everyone will want to use the family car for taxi driving.

makeorbrake

end of the road wrote: »

the system is perfectly simple, and people can if they feel it is a good investment, get a taxi licence.

That's not right though. A taxi license should never be an investment. It's a barrier to entry.

end of the road wrote: »

when they are not being kept out, rather they are choosing to stay out.

Once again, there are barriers to entry.

end of the road wrote: »

nope, just the law. if uber aren't willing to abide by our regulations then they are no loss. other taxi businesses are willing to do it, who are using similar tech.

When 'law' and 'regulations' are not being set by irish authorities to harness innovation? There is no excuse for that.

end of the road wrote: »

they may have to buy a vehicle anyway. so why not one that is accessible to more people. more value for money in the long term. not everyone will want to use the family car for taxi driving.

That's nonsense. The innovative side of an uber type service is that it enables the gig economy for the benefiit of user and driver alike. This is a massive barrier to entry and well you know it.

[Deleted User]

Uber's business model is effectively prevented in Ireland by regulation.

It works fine in many markets around the world.

Ireland is a small market comparatively that they probably aren't bothered too much about it at the moment.

They are still fighting battles in big markets like Spain (where regulations are the factor also) so Ireland is well down the list.

and yes people want better value - that's just human nature - unless there is a big downside somewhere else.

having a value option in Ireland would benefit consumers, maybe not current taxi drivers.

[Deleted User]

glasso wrote: »

having a value option in Ireland would benefit consumers, maybe not current taxi drivers.

Hackneys

Spook_ie

There is nothing stopping Uber from bringing in Uber Black ( The limousine option ), they can use their own pricing structure, they can use any car that the SGS view as a limousine ( not just that its black anymore ) but they have to follow the regulations about vehicle standards etc. It's really not that hard.

usernamegoes

Spook_ie wrote: »

There is nothing stopping Uber from bringing in Uber Black ( The limousine option ), they can use their own pricing structure, they can use any car that the SGS view as a limousine ( not just that its black anymore ) but they have to follow the regulations about vehicle standards etc. It's really not that hard.

So you've no problem with Uber operating via the model you've proposed? Charging whatever they like? No artificial limits on the number of drivers?

Uber have done all the lobbying to be allowed use hackneys for no reason, they could just have a VW approved as a limo! That's not hard at all; you should tell them. Unless there's a catch you haven't told us about.

Spook_ie

usernamegoes wrote: »

So you've no problem with Uber operating via the model you've proposed? Charging whatever they like? No artificial limits on the number of drivers?

Uber have done all the lobbying to be allowed use hackneys for no reason, they could just have a VW approved as a limo! That's not hard at all; you should tell them. Unless there's a catch you haven't told us about.

I have no problem with Uber operating under the same licensing conditions that I would have to. They could probably apply to have some thing like a VW Arteon or Passat passed out as a limousine as long as it passed the licensing inspections but certainly not a Polo or a Golf.

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Guidance_for_Limousine_Vehicle_Choice_31-01-18_PDF.pdf

Spook_ie

More light reading for those who actually want facts rather than Uberphile rhetoric

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Taxi_Bulletin_2018_V2_Web.pdf

Licenses Issued 2007-2017

WAT that the NTA have paid towards

Current reducing age profile of SPSV Fleet, the intended aim will remove all taxis from the roads at the age of 10 years except for WAT in recognition of their extra costs they will be allowed until age 15 years

end of the road

makeorbrake wrote: »

That's not right though. A taxi license should never be an investment. It's a barrier to entry.

it's not a barrier to entry. it simply shows (or at least it should show) that you are competent and fit to offer a transport service to the public.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Once again, there are barriers to entry.

there really aren't. otherwise we'd have no taxis. or at least a hell of a lot less of them.

makeorbrake wrote: »

When 'law' and 'regulations' are not being set by irish authorities to harness innovation? There is no excuse for that.

the laws aren't being set to harness innovation. they are being set to protect the public. you can innovate away as long as you abide by the law.

makeorbrake wrote: »

That's nonsense. The innovative side of an uber type service is that it enables the gig economy for the benefiit of user and driver alike. This is a massive barrier to entry and well you know it.

except it's not because drivers can choose their hours as long as they only drive for the legally permitted hours. the gig economy is in the taxi industry, plenty of part time taxi drivers as well as the full time ones.
the reality is, uber can absolutely compete here. they are choosing not to do so. that is their choice. if they come here, they will be able to compete with all other taxis on a level playing field. meaning actual competition. i wouldn't be surprised if duming down regulations or removing them to facilitate uber, if implemented, would potentially breach state aid laws on the basis that we were implementing favourible conditions at the expence of the public to favour a company over others.

usernamegoes

Spook_ie wrote: »

I have no problem with Uber operating under the same licensing conditions that I would have to. They could probably apply to have some thing like a VW Arteon or Passat passed out as a limousine as long as it passed the licensing inspections but certainly not a Polo or a Golf.

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Guidance_for_Limousine_Vehicle_Choice_31-01-18_PDF.pdf

Your link says that unacceptable cars are "Standard saloon cars generally accepted as standard taxis and hackneys" There's the catch you didn't mention.

No one is arguing that Uber should not have to comply with the same rules as everyone else! We are saying that the rules are wrong and everyone should operate by different rules.

usernamegoes

Spook_ie wrote: »

More light reading for those who actually want facts rather than Uberphile rhetoric

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Taxi_Bulletin_2018_V2_Web.pdf

Licenses Issued 2007-2017

WAT that the NTA have paid towards

Current reducing age profile of SPSV Fleet, the intended aim will remove all taxis from the roads at the age of 10 years except for WAT in recognition of their extra costs they will be allowed until age 15 years

Holy **** that's worse than I thought!!!!!

0 new normal taxi or hackneys for 7 presumably 8 years! A handful of WAT!
You call this operating on the same rules! The same rules would be all taxis must be WAT.

Jesus no wonder it's so hard to get a taxi anymore! I wonder how many of those are actually still used.

Spook_ie

usernamegoes wrote: »

Your link says that unacceptable cars are "Standard saloon cars generally accepted as standard taxis and hackneys" There's the catch you didn't mention.

No one is arguing that Uber should not have to comply with the same rules as everyone else! We are saying that the rules are wrong and everyone should operate by different rules.

No, what you're saying is there should be no rules.

As regards the link, pretty much any car is adaptable as a limousine they even allow the ubiquitous Skoda Superb which is a Passat in disguise, as I said they won't and shouldn't allow vehicles like Polos and Golfs, the primary delimiting factor being they are unable to take a standard sized fold up wheel chair.

Spook_ie

usernamegoes wrote: »

Holy **** that's worse than I thought!!!!!

0 new normal taxi or hackneys for 7 presumably 8 years! A handful of WAT!
You call this operating on the same rules! The same rules would be all taxis must be WAT.

Jesus no wonder it's so hard to get a taxi anymore! I wonder how many of those are actually still used.

Not hard to get a taxi though is it, you just can't get your wanted cheap Uber pack of non licensed driver & car

usernamegoes

Spook_ie wrote: »

No, what you're saying is there should be no rules.

As regards the link, pretty much any car is adaptable as a limousine they even allow the ubiquitous Skoda Superb which is a Passat in disguise, as I said they won't and shouldn't allow vehicles like Polos and Golfs, the primary delimiting factor being they are unable to take a standard sized fold up wheel chair.

Nope. I did not say there should be no rules. There should be no artificial barriers to entry.

Insurance (either driver covering it or the company), road-worthy car (the style and comfort features should be a choice), licence from government agency (covering background check and only costing an admin fee). Those are a good start. But not unnecessary barriers to entry that distort the market.

Spook_ie

usernamegoes wrote: »

Holy **** that's worse than I thought!!!!!

0 new normal taxi or hackneys for 7 presumably 8 years! A handful of WAT!
You call this operating on the same rules! The same rules would be all taxis must be WAT.

Jesus no wonder it's so hard to get a taxi anymore! I wonder how many of those are actually still used.

By the way you might look at the figures of 2009 ( the last year you could get a "normal" taxi plate ) and the the year 2017

2009 827 New Licenses of all kinds
2017 657 New Licenses of all kinds

Not a huge difference IMO

usernamegoes

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not hard to get a taxi though is it, you just can't get your wanted cheap Uber pack of non licensed driver & car

It's getting very hard to get a taxi starting from about a year ago it's become much more difficult to get one. Compared to a few years ago when it was easy.

Spook_ie

usernamegoes wrote: »

Nope. I did not say there should be no rules. There should be no artificial barriers to entry.

Insurance (either driver covering it or the company), road-worthy car (the style and comfort features should be a choice), licence from government agency (covering background check and only costing an admin fee). Those are a good start. But not unnecessary barriers to entry that distort the market.

That is what we actually have, the only stipulation is that they are actively encouraging WATs into the fleet, however, people like you would like to discourage the mobility disabled people from taking SPSVs by allowing a free for all.

Spook_ie

usernamegoes wrote: »

It's getting very hard to get a taxi starting from about a year ago it's become much more difficult to get one. Compared to a few years ago when it was easy.

Very rare that I have to fight people off from my taxi, perhaps you just aren't in the know.

Spook_ie

Anyways I'm off to pick up a few Xmas party goers and take them home for some exorbitant fee and will probably consign this thread to the usual "take a taxi once or twice a year at xmas etc. thread and complain because 75% of Ireland were looking for a taxi at the same time" pile

usernamegoes

Spook_ie wrote: »

By the way you might look at the figures of 2009 ( the last year you could get a "normal" taxi plate ) and the the year 2017

2009 827 New Licenses of all kinds
2017 657 New Licenses of all kinds

Not a huge difference IMO

One wonders if the demand for new taxis would be exceeded 657 in 2017 if the barrier to entry wasn't there. Perhaps then we'd be able to get taxis more easily.

Why don't you want taxi licences to be easily available to anyone who can pass the background check? Is it just because you don't like Uber or is there some other reason?

EDIT

Oh I see, it's because you're a taxi driver and you want to protect your turf from competition. I wish someone would limit the number of people who could do my job too.

usernamegoes

Spook_ie wrote: »

That is what we actually have, the only stipulation is that they are actively encouraging WATs into the fleet, however, people like you would like to discourage the mobility disabled people from taking SPSVs by allowing a free for all.

By that logic all non-WATs should be taken off the road tonight for 2 reasons: 1) to make it fair for all taxi drivers and 2) so wheelchair users can be accommodated.

Spook_ie

usernamegoes wrote: »

One wonders if the demand for new taxis would be exceeded 657 in 2017 if the barrier to entry wasn't there. Perhaps then we'd be able to get taxis more easily.

Why don't you want taxi licences to be easily available to anyone who can pass the background check? Is it just because you don't like Uber or is there some other reason?

EDIT

Oh I see, it's because you're a taxi driver and you want to protect your turf from competition. I wish someone would limit the number of people who could do my job too.

There is no barrier to putting a taxi on the road as long as it matches the NTAs lofty aspirations of increasing the WAT fleet to I believe their 10% figure, once that's achieved they may well reopen normal plate issues until then WAT and away you go

usernamegoes

Spook_ie wrote: »

There is no barrier to putting a taxi on the road as long as it matches the NTAs lofty aspirations of increasing the WAT fleet to I believe their 10% figure, once that's achieved they may well reopen normal plate issues until then WAT and away you go

"There's no barrier to entry except the barrier to entry"

Spook_ie

usernamegoes wrote: »

By that logic all non-WATs should be taken off the road tonight for 2 reasons: 1) to make it fair for all taxi drivers and 2) so wheelchair users can be accommodated.

Ah so your solution to too few taxis would be to remove more taxis off the street, interesting, but anyways the NTA actively encourage plate owners to transfer over their normal plates to WATs , even to the extent of promising them that they can still put it onto a normal saloon at a later date and paying them a grant to do so. The same grant that is available to anyone who wants to put a taxi on the road.

usernamegoes

Spook_ie wrote: »

Ah so your solution to too few taxis would be to remove more taxis off the street, interesting, but anyways the NTA actively encourage plate owners to transfer over their normal plates to WATs , even to the extent of promising them that they can still put it onto a normal saloon at a later date and paying them a grant to do so. The same grant that is available to anyone who wants to put a taxi on the road.

Not my solution; it's yours and it says it all.

Losty Dublin

Spook_ie wrote: »

There is no barrier to putting a taxi on the road as long as it matches the NTAs lofty aspirations of increasing the WAT fleet to I believe their 10% figure, once that's achieved they may well reopen normal plate issues until then WAT and away you go

If they would open up plate owners to a similar tax and excise rebate that wheelchair users currently avail off then it would be a help. Different topic for a different thread.

Spook_ie

usernamegoes wrote: »

"There's no barrier to entry except the barrier to entry"

There is no barrier, you just have to accept the minimum standards, perhaps you should ask around about what kind of taxis were on the road pre NTA days when they removed the license limits in 2003/4.

Losty Dublin

Spook_ie wrote: »

There is no barrier, you just have to accept the minimum standards, perhaps you should ask around about what kind of taxis were on the road pre NTA days when they removed the license limits in 2003/4.

I remember there being a few Punto Taxi's on the roads.