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

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

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.

[Deleted User]

glasso wrote: »

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

Hackneys

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Deleted User]

makeorbrake wrote: »

Of course I am. Tell me why someone can't be issued a license tomorrow for a minimal fee?

They can, for a 170 eur fee

makeorbrake wrote: »

Everyone knows the model facilitates people to go out and work as and when it suits. You can't do that if you restrict in this fashion. It's protectionism.

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

makeorbrake

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Basic laws relating to car insurance and basic State licensing isn't what classes as protectionism to the vast majority of society. The bar for taxi permits in Ireland is not set at a terribly high level all told

Ok, so how does the insurance thing work in Ireland? I know in some markets, Uber have their own insurance. Is there a reasonable provision for insurance - as if there isn't, who's fault is that?

I thought that someone had said it's not possible to get a license right now for the most part?

Anything that stifles an innovative approach only serves to hold society back.

Losty Dublin

makeorbrake wrote: »

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

Basic laws relating to car insurance and basic State licensing isn't what classes as protectionism to the vast majority of society. The bar for taxi permits in Ireland is not set at a terribly high level all told; it is too low if anything. Uber are more than welcome to utilise drivers and cars that meet such standards, which in Ireland are rather modest in comparison to may other countries.

[Deleted User]

Bray Head wrote: »

I highly doubt Uber could sustainably offer 30% to 40% cheaper fares than the regulated fare.

Driving a taxi is not a high-margin occupation. Taxi fares (adjusted for cost of living) are at the low end in Ireland compared to most European countries.

this article is fairly recent (2017) by when uber was well established / running over a number of years in London- not exactly the same situation but a reasonable comparison

. They ran a three-day experiment taking 29 journeys from different locations around London. One researcher hailed a taxi from the Uber app while another took a traditional black cab to the same destination, with the route left up to the driver.

"At the end of their trial, black cabs worked out faster, taking on average 88 per cent of the time an Uber did – although they were also around 35 per cent more expensive."

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2117966-taxi-races-show-black-cabs-beat-uber-on-speed-but-not-cost/

makeorbrake

Bray Head wrote: »

I highly doubt Uber could sustainably offer 30% to 40% cheaper fares than the regulated fare.

If that's the case, then it will correct itself pretty quickly.

Bray Head

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.

I highly doubt Uber could sustainably offer 30% to 40% cheaper fares than the regulated fare.

Driving a taxi is not a high-margin occupation. Taxi fares (adjusted for cost of living) are at the low end in Ireland compared to most European countries.

makeorbrake

magicbastarder wrote: »

why?

why not? What is the reason to set artificial controls?

usernamegoes

Spook_ie wrote: »

It only costs €170 for a wheelchair accessible license, subject to age limits of vehicle, but you'd sooner allow the mobility disadvantaged of Ireland to go crawl wherever they'd like to get to, so that people can drive their family vehicles a few hours a day to put what few WAT's we have now off the road.

end of the road wrote: »

that is what such cars cost brand new. that is just how it is . you could get a second hand one a lot cheaper i'm sure. if you want to be a taxi driver then that is the rules, and they should not be removed just to facilitate uber who can compete if they so wish.

our model doesn't shut out uber. uber can come here and compete if they so wish. they are not stopped from doing so. they simply have to abide by the rules as set down, rules which exist for the benefit of the users of taxis. if they do not wish to come here, that is up to them, they are the only ones shutting themselves out.

Deleted User wrote: »

There is no protectionism, just minimum requirements which uber choose not to adhere to thereby excluding themselves from the market, simples

Unless of course, you are advocating that we drop the bare minimum standards that took a long time to get put in?

Are you in favour of not allowing existing licences to renew unless they have a wheelchair accessible car?

Frankly, I think this measure has the unintended consequence of making it harder for wheelchair users to get a cab as all the accessible ones are being used up.

magicbastarder

makeorbrake wrote: »

The law of supply and demand is the best regulation.

why?

makeorbrake

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Illegally so in Ireland under their intended business model.

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

[Deleted User]

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.

Bray Head

markodaly wrote: »

What is the largest Irish tech multinational in Ireland and how many do they employ?

I don't know.

You were making the rhetorical point so I guess it's your job to find out.

Losty Dublin

makeorbrake wrote: »

They recognise the value of data - is all that means. They're still facilitators of getting people from point A to point B.

Illegally so in Ireland under their intended business model.

makeorbrake

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

There is no lack of taxi services in Dublin. As noted above, government policy needs to be focussed on getting cars (including taxis) off the streets over the next two decades.

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.

LuckyLloyd

There is no lack of taxi services in Dublin. As noted above, government policy needs to be focussed on getting cars (including taxis) off the streets over the next two decades.

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

There is no protectionism, just minimum requirements which uber choose not to adhere to thereby excluding themselves from the market, simples

Unless of course, you are advocating that we drop the bare minimum standards that took a long time to get put in?

Of course I am. Tell me why someone can't be issued a license tomorrow for a minimal fee? Everyone knows the model facilitates people to go out and work as and when it suits. You can't do that if you restrict in this fashion. It's protectionism.

[Deleted User]

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.

There is no protectionism, just minimum requirements which uber choose not to adhere to thereby excluding themselves from the market, simples

Unless of course, you are advocating that we drop the bare minimum standards that took a long time to get put in?

makeorbrake

end of the road wrote: »

if you want to be a taxi driver then that is the rules, and they should not be removed just to facilitate uber who can compete if they so wish.
our model doesn't shut out uber. uber can come here and compete if they so wish. they are not stopped from doing so. they simply have to abide by the rules as set down, rules which exist for the benefit of the users of taxis. if they do not wish to come here, that is up to them, they are the only ones shutting themselves out.

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.

end of the road

markodaly wrote: »

You mean a WheelChair Accessible Taxi license, so long as you spend €30,000 on a wheelchair accessible car. Bargain! LOL

that is what such cars cost brand new. that is just how it is . you could get a second hand one a lot cheaper i'm sure. if you want to be a taxi driver then that is the rules, and they should not be removed just to facilitate uber who can compete if they so wish.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Exactly. In which case, someone in some office somewhere can suggest anyone can get a license. But the reality is that this model shuts out uber. Why have a limited number of licenses?

The tech allows for someone to go out to work for a few hours on the fly. There's great flexibility in that. It's a more efficient use of peoples time and the available fleet of cars.

On this idea of ubers adding to traffic congestion, I don't accept that. A taxi is likely to go 'cruising' for work. An uber isn't. Whilst sitting in the car, there is usually somewhere to pull in temporarily. Other than that - and perhaps its symptomatic of how cost effective uber is where i'm at right now - I see uber's taking jobs immediately after they drop me off.

our model doesn't shut out uber. uber can come here and compete if they so wish. they are not stopped from doing so. they simply have to abide by the rules as set down, rules which exist for the benefit of the users of taxis. if they do not wish to come here, that is up to them, they are the only ones shutting themselves out.

The high horse brigade

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Which backs up my point to some extent, Spook. Their true credentials and knowledge are not in the trade of getting people from A to B.

What's your point, data is valuable and is collected everywhere. The speed vans at the side of the road are collecting data and registrations. It's part of the world we live in today

makeorbrake

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Which backs up my point to some extent, Spook. Their true credentials and knowledge are not in the trade of getting people from A to B.

They recognise the value of data - is all that means. They're still facilitators of getting people from point A to point B.

Losty Dublin

Spook_ie wrote: »

Their real model is based on data acquisition, the same as myTaxi, all that valuable travel information is a sellable commodity why do you think Google were investing in it until they fell out.

But all three companies are still after the data, Uber, MyTaxi ( Daimler ) and Google

https://qz.com/880697/uber-is-finally-giving-the-public-a-glimpse-of-its-stunning-trove-of-transit-data/
https://www.siliconrepublic.com/companies/mytaxi-ceo-interview

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/07/travis-kalanick-on-google-uber-relationship.html

Which backs up my point to some extent, Spook. Their true credentials and knowledge are not in the trade of getting people from A to B.