Uber

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Increasing worker insecurity rocks, it's good for the economy, the wealth created trickles down!

What worker insecurity? Other than that, change is to be embraced - those that try to put up barriers get left behind.

Wanderer78

Spook_ie wrote:

Yes I do believe that countries that allow Uber to work unregulated are foolish, much the same as cities that allow their residential rental properties to disappear into AirBNB are foolish.

Increasing worker insecurity rocks, it's good for the economy, the wealth created trickles down!

makeorbrake wrote: »

I finally get it. You're all about protecting the consumer. How did I possibly miss that?:p

And I guess that irish regulation that doesnt in any way consider ride sharing (..or does it??..lol) is actually way more advanced than any other in protecting citizens from the evil uber....how foolish some of these other countries are to allow uber to operate - very backward places, right?

No I'm not all about protecting the consumer if I can maximise my profits by getting the customer to change his drop off from say CFJs in Harcourt St to some adjacent drop off and them walking the rest of the way, it's to facilitate me not being stuck empty in a traffic jam not them.

Yes I do believe that countries that allow Uber to work unregulated are foolish, much the same as cities that allow their residential rental properties to disappear into AirBNB are foolish.

Spook_ie wrote: »

You reckon, but that's what you would be allowing with unregulated Uber.

Well, its not regulated as a ride sharing service is it. There's the issue. Otherwise, you're trying to paint some god awful picture - the example you gave is a tad on the extreme end.

I've used uber in 4 countries. In one, there doesn't seem to be any taxis left - so i guess i had little to compare it to. In the other 3, car standards were either equal to or much higher than taxis. Go figure...

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yes the regulations forbid Uber ride sharing as they'd like to do it because there is a maximum fares order in effect, in other words you couldn't charge someone €15 from the City Centre to ALSAA and then charge someone else in the car another €15 to carry on to Dublin Airport Terminal 1.

I finally get it. You're all about protecting the consumer. How did I possibly miss that?:p

And I guess that irish regulation that doesnt in any way consider ride sharing (..or does it??..lol) is actually way more advanced than any other in protecting citizens from the evil uber....how foolish some of these other countries are to allow uber to operate - very backward places, right?

makeorbrake wrote: »

Adds nothing to the discussion.

You reckon, but that's what you would be allowing with unregulated Uber.

makeorbrake wrote: »

You pick and choose to suit your narrative.

Uber is a ride sharing service.

Taxi's are different.

The regulations have not been designed for a ride sharing service or with a ride sharing service in mind (other than to exclude it).

Yes the regulations forbid Uber ride sharing as they'd like to do it because there is a maximum fares order in effect, in other words you couldn't charge someone €15 from the City Centre to ALSAA and then charge someone else in the car another €15 to carry on to Dublin Airport Terminal 1.

MyTaxi were going to try doing ride sharing from Drury St car park until the unions and NTA pointed them to the regulations.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yeah, sure when Pizza Pete isn't running a Pizza delivery you can get in and go somewhere in his mid 90s Glanza.

Adds nothing to the discussion.

makeorbrake wrote: »

No you don't. The benefit is far greater than that so long as that benefit is not regulated out of existence. The ability for a dynamic working scenario where - using their own NCT compliant car, someone can go out and work for a couple of hours....or if they're going on a certain journey, they can switch on the uber app and ride-share.

When you apply this nonsense restriction of only giving a license to someone knowing that they will have to go out especially and buy a particular type of car, everyone knows that's b.s. It totally destroys the innovative aspect of the offering. The taxi drivers on this thread know it - but nobody wants to admit to it.

Yeah, sure when Pizza Pete isn't running a Pizza delivery you can get in and go somewhere in his mid 90s Glanza.

Deleted User wrote: »

So an app basically, they have an app. Ok, great, my local taxi company has one too that works LITERALLY the same as uber or lyft (I've used both)

No you don't. The benefit is far greater than that so long as that benefit is not regulated out of existence. The ability for a dynamic working scenario where - using their own NCT compliant car, someone can go out and work for a couple of hours....or if they're going on a certain journey, they can switch on the uber app and ride-share.

When you apply this nonsense restriction of only giving a license to someone knowing that they will have to go out especially and buy a particular type of car, everyone knows that's b.s. It totally destroys the innovative aspect of the offering. The taxi drivers on this thread know it - but nobody wants to admit to it.

Deleted User wrote: »

Uber fits that description regardless of the name you or anyone else puts on it

You pick and choose to suit your narrative.

Uber is a ride sharing service.

Taxi's are different.

The regulations have not been designed for a ride sharing service or with a ride sharing service in mind (other than to exclude it).

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ride-sharing services are innovative as they harness tech in order to facilitate the most dynamic of working arrangements, making use of the existing stock of cars.

So an app basically, they have an app. Ok, great, my local taxi company has one too that works LITERALLY the same as uber or lyft (I've used both)

Just to add here as you posted while I was editing my previous post

The regulations I'm referring to are the ones covering SPSV's defined as "vehicles capable of carrying for hire or reward a maximum of eight passengers in addition to the driver"

Uber fits that description regardless of the name you or anyone else puts on it

Deleted User wrote: »

Not according to the regulations and that's all that matters to be honest . You really need to try and understand this. It's not that complicated

There's no issue with my understanding. The faux-disconnect in this discussion is the suggestion that its appropriate for a ride-sharing service to be subjected to regulations that are designed for a taxi service.

Your statement reads to me as - the regulations are behind us so tough.

That's fine in that it's your opinion but don't ask me to like it or agree with it as I don't. Ride-sharing services are innovative as they harness tech in order to facilitate the most dynamic of working arrangements, making use of the existing stock of cars.

Authorities in Ireland are always slow to the party and we pay the price for that. It's an inevitability that uber-like services will make further in-roads elsewhere and other countries will reap the benefits of that. But hey, I guess some of you'se will be able to stave off competition for a while longer, huh?

Probably more important than general progression.

makeorbrake wrote: »

It's been pointed out numerous times now. Uber is a ride-sharing service. It's not a taxi service.

Not according to the regulations and that's all that matters to be honest

You want those regulations changed, try contacting the regulator and lobbying for them to be changed, in the mean time uber are welcome to ply for trade within the existing regulations, specifically the ones governing SPSV's as defined "as vehicles capable of carrying for hire or reward a maximum of eight passengers in addition to the driver"

You really need to try and understand this. It's not that complicated.

VeryTerry wrote: »

I live in a developing country and the Uber drivers have to have a much better standard of car than the normal taxis. They are nearly all Ford Fusions while the normal taxis are all clapped out bangers. Uber is more expensive but not by much. A 5 kilometer journey is about 3 euro with uber or 2.50 in a yellow taxi.

I use Uber when I don't know where I'm going so I don't have to work it out with someone who doesn't speak English. If I'm going somewhere I know I use the local taxis.

The very same. Living in a developing country and uber cars are of a higher standard 99 times out of 100. People get robbed here in regular taxis. That can't happen with uber as they can be traced. I had been using yellow taxis but on my last taxi trip i didnt clock that the guy left the meter off. No more taxis since then and happy out with uber.

It's against the law here - but that won't stop uber drivers going out onto the road. There are attacks occasionally. A work colleague was in an uber that was shot at a few months ago. The taxi business is mob controlled - hence the protectionism.

Spook_ie wrote: »

you want to put your car on the road for the same price to the detriment of improving transport for mobility disadvantaged people.

I don't think any of you here actually believe this! You're all hiding behind it.
The same way with the 'law' this and 'regulation' that - ONLY because they're currently structured in a way to PROTECT taxi drivers.

It's been pointed out numerous times now. Uber is a ride-sharing service. It's not a taxi service. It's farcical to expect someone to go out and buy a particular type of car at higher cost to get a license.

I said it before - it's stymieing innovation. There's great empowerment in people being able to harness the use of their existing cars and work with total flexibility as and when they want via uber. Today, I used uber (not in ireland) and the guy was a student using his girlfriends car. It works for him to work the holidays.

It's quite simple...
- Background check
- NCT
- License at the cost of no more than an admin fee

Done.

markodaly wrote: »

Proves my point, as you cannot answer the question as to why the NTA cannot have more reasonable fees for a taxi license.

I already have a car, but you expect me to buy another just so I can be a Taxi driver. I expect that you do not have a WAV, so you expect me to buy a car not like yours to compete in the same market...

And you say this is not protectionism? LOLZ. I can see why you're a taxi driver now, the cognitive ability is not up to much.

The fee for a WAT license is €170, the NTA are slowly migrating the fleet to a higher percentage of WATs, you want to put your car on the road for the same price to the detriment of improving transport for mobility disadvantaged people. You just think its unfair because you don't see anything other than your small piece of the overall situation.

I suspect that when/if the NTA start releasing saloon plate licenses you would moan about drivers having to have a sticker on the door, a sealed meter, a sign on the roof etc. as being protectionist.

end of the road wrote: »

no protectionism. simply the costs of buying a car that is required to operate a public transport service which must meet a minimum standard for the good of the customer.

end of the road wrote: »

the fees are reasonable. if only high quality fully accessible cars are going into the industry then that is good for the user. keeps standards high.

Clearly you have a memory like a goldfish. You can't even remember your own posts.

markodaly wrote: »

Proves my point, as you cannot answer the question as to why the NTA cannot have more reasonable fees for a taxi license.

I already have a car, but you expect me to buy another just so I can be a Taxi driver. I expect that you do not have a WAV, so you expect me to buy a car not like yours to compete in the same market...

And you say this is not protectionism? LOLZ. I can see why you're a taxi driver now, the cognitive ability is not up to much.

the fees are reasonable. if only high quality fully accessible cars are going into the industry then that is good for the user. keeps standards high.

markodaly wrote: »

Them the rules right? LOL It is a pity you do not take the same stance when it comes to evictions.

At a push maybe about €15,000 for a 5-6 year old WAV. Still, I do not know many people with €15,000 lying about to buy a 5 year old car for the privilege of getting a taxi license. Protectionism pure and simple.

no protectionism. simply the costs of buying a car that is required to operate a public transport service which must meet a minimum standard for the good of the customer.

Spook_ie wrote: »

http://www.freedommobility.ie/viewanad.php?ad_id=1275439

There you go, expect to see you on the ranks next month.

Proves my point, as you cannot answer the question as to why the NTA cannot have more reasonable fees for a taxi license.

I already have a car, but you expect me to buy another just so I can be a Taxi driver. I expect that you do not have a WAV, so you expect me to buy a car not like yours to compete in the same market...

And you say this is not protectionism? LOLZ. I can see why you're a taxi driver now, the cognitive ability is not up to much.

markodaly wrote: »

Which again, as I state are impossible for anyone to ride share or even drive a taxi.
If the minimum requirements were more affordable, people would not have an issue.

The taxi regulator could easily adopt the following:

Garda background check
Driver license
Visa documentation (if applicable)
NCT
€100 registration fee for a ridesharing license.

Bobs your uncle...

Yet, as I said, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get a taxi plate in this country right now unless you are willing to stump up €30,000 for a wheel chair accessible car.
Even when available the normal taxi plate was the guts of €5,000

THIS.IS.PROTECTIONISM!

http://www.freedommobility.ie/viewanad.php?ad_id=1275439

There you go, expect to see you on the ranks next month.

end of the road wrote: »

ride share, taxi, more or less the same thing. .

Expect of course they are not the same thing, the fact you are blagging about this now shows your utter lack of knowledge on the subject matter on hand.

Nermal wrote: »

If consumers valued these minimum standards, they'd choose cabs that met these standards. They might even pay more for them. Right now, they don't have the choice.

No they wouldn't pay more for them, there is a maximum fare order in effect, this is one of the reasons Uber don't like it, no gouging on prices when demand is higher. If a taxi doesn't meet the standards then complain to the NTA, that's why they're there.

https://www.nationaltr...etin_2018_V2_Web.pdf

Section 7

end of the road wrote: »

they are not shut out.

Them the rules right? LOL It is a pity you do not take the same stance when it comes to evictions.

they are affordible.

At a push maybe about €15,000 for a 5-6 year old WAV. Still, I do not know many people with €15,000 lying about to buy a 5 year old car for the privilege of getting a taxi license. Protectionism pure and simple.

markodaly wrote: »

Apart from the fact that not one normal taxi license has been granted since 2010....

Uber is a ride-sharing service, not a taxi service. If the regulations do not allow the former, then why expect Uber to operate as the latter?

The fact that people can't admit that this is a classic case of protectionism speaks volumes. Fine by the way, I understand why a taxi driver who has a taxi license wants to keep it that way, its business 101. Less taxi's on the road = more fares.

But again, people are just dishonest with their intentions.

ride share, taxi, more or less the same thing. you can share a taxi with multiple people if going to the same or to somewhere along the route that someone else may be going.

Nermal wrote: »

If consumers valued these minimum standards, they'd choose cabs that met these standards. They might even pay more for them. Right now, they don't have the choice.

so be it. it's for the good of public safety and to insure high standards.

markodaly wrote: »

'Them the rules'. I wonder were you that forthright in the Stokestown thread? LOL

They and others are shut out by ride-sharing because of arbitrary rules which suits a few, not the many. We have the illusion of competition, when in fact its a closed shop.

they are not shut out. they are choosing to stay out presumably so as to not to have to abide by our minimum standards. that is their choice, and they are no loss. we have lots of competition with taxis.

markodaly wrote: »

Which again, as I state are impossible for anyone to ride share or even drive a taxi.
If the minimum requirements were more affordable, people would not have an issue.

The taxi regulator could easily adopt the following:

Garda background check
Driver license
Visa documentation (if applicable)
NCT
€100 registration fee for a ridesharing license.

Bobs your uncle...

Yet, as I said, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get a taxi plate in this country right now unless you are willing to stump up €30,000 for a wheel chair accessible car.
Even when available the normal taxi plate was the guts of €5,000

THIS.IS.PROTECTIONISM!

they are affordible. you could get a second hand wheelchair vehicle for a lot cheaper then 30 grand. no protectionism, but setting quality standards for the good of the customer.

Deleted User wrote: »

Given that there is nothing whatsoever, nadda, zero, zilch, preventing uber et al, from starting here tomorrow within the existing regulations, I think you'll find that the "ism" preventing ubers entry is more abstentionism than protectionism

Apart from the fact that not one normal taxi license has been granted since 2010....

Uber is a ride-sharing service, not a taxi service. If the regulations do not allow the former, then why expect Uber to operate as the latter?

The fact that people can't admit that this is a classic case of protectionism speaks volumes. Fine by the way, I understand why a taxi driver who has a taxi license wants to keep it that way, its business 101. Less taxi's on the road = more fares.

But again, people are just dishonest with their intentions.