Uber

end of the road wrote: »

that's exactly what we have.

No, it's not! There's a requirement to go and buy a car worth 15k in the full knowledge that the idea of ride sharing is that people use their perfectly good NCT'ed car - and ride share now and again.

You know well that nobody is going to go and do that for occasional ride sharing use.

magicbastarder

i'd love to hear what the insurance company's response would be to 'appropriate insurance' for a driver who is using his or her car on a commercial basis.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Even if they don't, it matters not. The regs can simply be wrong. See my point above about government and state bodies, their decisions oftentimes being wayward deliberately or due to incompetence.

Other than that, don't tell me the taxi industry doesn't lobby.

I'm not interested in routing information and I don't want to pay a premium for any such info. google maps, wayz, uber maps, etc.

I've said it before...
- Background check
- NCT'ed car
- a license that costs no more than an admin fee
- the appropriate insurance.

Done.

that's exactly what we have.

Spook_ie wrote: »

The taxi drivers don't make the regulations, otherwise we'd still be able to drive 15 year old Mercs and the like instead of less than 10year old basic saloons like Mondeos and Avensis's,

Even if they don't, it matters not. The regs can simply be wrong. See my point above about government and state bodies, their decisions oftentimes being wayward deliberately or due to incompetence.

Other than that, don't tell me the taxi industry doesn't lobby.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Think knowledge is more likely to be routes orientated than general chit chat knowledge

I'm not interested in routing information and I don't want to pay a premium for any such info. google maps, wayz, uber maps, etc.

Spook_ie wrote: »

So you'd obviously like taxis to be able to compete on the same basis, no SPSV insurance, no meters just make up a price, no Garda vetting, no annual NCT unless the car is older than 10 years, no inspections, no licenses specific to areas etc.

I've said it before...
- Background check
- NCT'ed car
- a license that costs no more than an admin fee
- the appropriate insurance.

Done.

Spook_ie wrote: »

So you expect the taxi drivers lobbied 39 votes for and multi billion spender Uber to only lobby 6, get real

money talks.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Did you not see my post about congestion around Harcourt Street, my only concern with congestion is if it means me sitting in a traffic jam empty of paying customers.

I see - so your first consideration is not money? I mean you and the taxi drivers of new york - yer special ..no doubt.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Give me a break. The U.S. is most definitely NOT immune from lobbying!!

Again, are you seriously suggesting that the taxi drivers were concerned about congestion!? I understand it - there or in Ireland - you want to protect your market. But at least be honest and say so.

So you expect the taxi drivers lobbied 39 votes for and multi billion spender Uber to only lobby 6, get real

Did you not see my post about congestion around Harcourt Street, my only concern with congestion is if it means me sitting in a traffic jam empty of paying customers.

makeorbrake wrote: »

<snipped>
As regards this 'decent standard' nonsense, you're hiding behind that. A car has an NCT meaning it's safe. As has been pointed out, uber in many other countries results in a higher standard - not a lower standard.

Anyone remember the hulabaloo when taxi drivers tried the same argument as to why we didn't need an age rule!

You know perfectly well these are not supposed to be full time drivers. They're not even part time drivers. The concept was designed for people to go out and work the odd hour here and there. It is NOT reasonable to expect major investment when we all know that the cars most people have are perfectly capable of acting as a form of transport.

You apply a regulation that makes ride sharing impossible - then of course innovation is being stymied.

The taxi drivers don't make the regulations, otherwise we'd still be able to drive 15 year old Mercs and the like instead of less than 10year old basic saloons like Mondeos and Avensis's,

Good jaysus! Knowledge? I have no interest in a taxi driver talking shíte!:rolleyes:

Think knowledge is more likely to be routes orientated than general chit chat knowledge

See above - in many instances, uber cars are of a higher standard. Secondly, any car with an nct is secure and safe.

So you'd obviously like taxis to be able to compete on the same basis, no SPSV insurance, no meters just make up a price, no Garda vetting, no annual NCT unless the car is older than 10 years, no inspections, no licenses specific to areas etc.

who the *** are you to dictate to me what transport I want to access? Who are you to deprive someone like him the opportunity to go out and work for a few hours so that he can pay his way through college?

Ah yeah, this is priceless. Keep timewasters out? You mean protectionism.

Some here have stated they're taxi drivers.

Spook_ie wrote: »

And, who decided the taxi drivers? No it was decided by the NYC council on a 39 to 6 vote, I suppose there could be 39 taxi drivers on the council but somehow I doubt it, you really do grasp at straws!

Give me a break. The U.S. is most definitely NOT immune from lobbying!!

Again, are you seriously suggesting that the taxi drivers were concerned about congestion!? I understand it - there or in Ireland - you want to protect your market. But at least be honest and say so.

makeorbrake wrote: »

From your article:

"Taxi drivers and others in favour of the legislation have been campaigning for months"

And I guess they're so motivated by a concern about congestion! Please...

And, who decided the taxi drivers? No it was decided by the NYC council on a 39 to 6 vote, I suppose there could be 39 taxi drivers on the council but somehow I doubt it, you really do grasp at straws!

Deleted User wrote: »

Makeorbrake, you say ride-sharing, the regulator says spsv

Exactly - so they're including a totally different offering under the regulation for taxis when they should have a seperate regulatory framework. Thank you.

end of the road wrote: »

there is no protectionism or apeasement of anyone or regulation of anyone out of the market. any regulation that exists is to protect the consumer only.

In your opinion. That's your opinion and mines the reverse.

end of the road wrote: »

it doesn't matter whether you respect the regulations or not, if you want to be part of the industry you will abide by them or not be part of the industry.

That's a bs attitude - and its one of convenience (as it suits your purposes right now). Governments and national authorities are wayward all the time - sometimes with bad intent and sometimes just due to incompetence. They need to be held to account.

end of the road wrote: »

uber is choosing not to enter the market here. it is in no way being prevented from doing so. ride sharing is perfectly legal, as i said taxis take multiple people all of the time and there are part time taxi drivers.

Rubbish. You can keep saying it a thousand times - it wont make it right. If i want to go out today as an uber driver and i have a perfectly good, clean, spacious car, I'm being prevented from doing so. Don't tell me otherwise - you know perfectly well that someone that wants to avail of the option to ride-share occasionally is not going to go out and spend 15k on a specific type of car. You're hiding behind this the whole time.

makeorbrake wrote: »

@end of the road: You're sticking to the same line over and over again. I'll keep this as short as I can. You know perfectly well that hardly anyone is going to go out for an hour here or there if they have to go specifically and buy a particular vehicle, spending in excess of 15k! You know that well. Therefore, ride sharing is being regulated out of the market - end of.

On talking with taxi drivers, remember you sold it as them having 'good knowledge' - over and above an uber driver. Sorry - but that doesn't wash. People want to get from A to B. You might get on famously with your taxi driver or your uber driver or you may not - there is no added value here.

Re. taxi drivers on this thread, im pretty sure that plenty are not but there's a certain type of illogical argument that for me can only be coming from someone in the industry in some form or another.

So the regulator - in appeasing the taxi lobby - is depriving the consumer of the right to choose taxi or uber and for uber drivers to go on the road once in a while. Sorry but I'm not a believer in governments and state authorities acting in peoples interests - often times they do the complete opposite. The regulation is there but i do not respect it or the people that are keeping it there.

there is no protectionism or apeasement of anyone or regulation of anyone out of the market. any regulation that exists is to protect the consumer only. it doesn't matter whether you respect the regulations or not, if you want to be part of the industry you will abide by them or not be part of the industry.
uber is choosing not to enter the market here. it is in no way being prevented from doing so. ride sharing is perfectly legal, as i said taxis take multiple people all of the time and there are part time taxi drivers.

[Deleted User]

Makeorbrake, you say ride-sharing, the regulator says spsv

@end of the road: You're sticking to the same line over and over again. I'll keep this as short as I can. You know perfectly well that hardly anyone is going to go out for an hour here or there if they have to go specifically and buy a particular vehicle, spending in excess of 15k! You know that well. Therefore, ride sharing is being regulated out of the market - end of.

On talking with taxi drivers, remember you sold it as them having 'good knowledge' - over and above an uber driver. Sorry - but that doesn't wash. People want to get from A to B. You might get on famously with your taxi driver or your uber driver or you may not - there is no added value here.

Re. taxi drivers on this thread, im pretty sure that plenty are not but there's a certain type of illogical argument that for me can only be coming from someone in the industry in some form or another.

So the regulator - in appeasing the taxi lobby - is depriving the consumer of the right to choose taxi or uber and for uber drivers to go on the road once in a while. Sorry but I'm not a believer in governments and state authorities acting in peoples interests - often times they do the complete opposite. The regulation is there but i do not respect it or the people that are keeping it there.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Good jaysus! Knowledge? I have no interest in a taxi driver talking shíte!

neither do i but if they talk to me i'm not going to ignore them as it's disrespectful.

makeorbrake wrote: »

See above - in many instances, uber cars are of a higher standard. Secondly, any car with an nct is secure and safe.

grand, they can apply for the taxi licence and drive so. why aren't they doing it?

makeorbrake wrote: »

who the *** are you to dictate to me what transport I want to access?

you can access whatever transport you want where and if it is availible.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Who are you to deprive someone like him the opportunity to go out and work for a few hours so that he can pay his way through college?

i'm not. he can work away as long as he abides by the regulations of his country.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ah yeah, this is priceless. Keep timewasters out? You mean protectionism.

no, simply keeping those not interested in providing a quality service out of the industry.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Some here have stated they're taxi drivers.

plenty of us aren't however. i'd wager more of us aren't taxi drivers then are on this thread.

makeorbrake wrote: »

They are NOT the same thing! The concept that uber bring to market is that regular people can use their own car to offer transportation if they're on a specific journey OR they want to go out for a few hours and work.

they can do that within existing rules, as long as they have a taxi licence and their own car is of a good standard. they can work for an hour or up to the legal driving hours if they want.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Yes, there could be specific regulations for uber/ride sharing services - agree completely.

there already are. the laws in relation to psvs.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Rubbish. You know perfectly well that ride-sharing becomes an impossibility if the potential uber driver has to go out and spend 15k on a specific car. We both know that is a protectionist contrivance.

it's a protectionist nothing. it's about regulating the industry to insure a quality service is provided.

makeorbrake wrote: »

As regards this 'decent standard' nonsense, you're hiding behind that. A car has an NCT meaning it's safe. As has been pointed out, uber in many other countries results in a higher standard - not a lower standard.

the rules in relation to psvs reflect this.

makeorbrake wrote: »

You know perfectly well these are not supposed to be full time drivers. They're not even part time drivers. The concept was designed for people to go out and work the odd hour here and there. It is NOT reasonable to expect major investment when we all know that the cars most people have are perfectly capable of acting as a form of transport.

the rules in relation to psvs reflect that as well. as long as the car meets the standard required it can be used. you don't have to have a second car to taxi.

makeorbrake wrote: »

You apply a regulation that makes ride sharing impossible - then of course innovation is being stymied.

there is no such law in ireland. ride sharing is possible, taxis do it all the time and i have experienced as such myself. it is uber who is choosing themselves not to operate in ireland.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Doesn't seem to be working as well at reducing congestion etc. in NY, San Fran and Chicago

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/companies/new-york-uber-lyft

From your article:

"Taxi drivers and others in favour of the legislation have been campaigning for months"

And I guess they're so motivated by a concern about congestion! Please...

end of the road wrote: »

a ride sharing service and a taxi are the same thing, they both transport people from a to b for a fee in return. i have shared a taxi multiple times with multiple people going to different places because the drivers happened to be going my way.

They are NOT the same thing! The concept that uber bring to market is that regular people can use their own car to offer transportation if they're on a specific journey OR they want to go out for a few hours and work.

end of the road wrote: »

if there is such a major difference as you claim between uber and a taxi then there is no need to relax the taxi rules because uber can offer their different service.

Yes, there could be specific regulations for uber/ride sharing services - agree completely.

end of the road wrote: »

or, they can offer their ride sharing/taxi service within the taxi rules which are set out to insure decent standards for the user

Rubbish. You know perfectly well that ride-sharing becomes an impossibility if the potential uber driver has to go out and spend 15k on a specific car. We both know that is a protectionist contrivance.
As regards this 'decent standard' nonsense, you're hiding behind that. A car has an NCT meaning it's safe. As has been pointed out, uber in many other countries results in a higher standard - not a lower standard.

end of the road wrote: »

it's perfectly reasonable to expect someone who is serious about providing a public transport service to the people to have to buy a high standard car to get that licence as that car will be able to take more fares due to being more accessible and it will show that the operator is serious about operating.

You know perfectly well these are not supposed to be full time drivers. They're not even part time drivers. The concept was designed for people to go out and work the odd hour here and there. It is NOT reasonable to expect major investment when we all know that the cars most people have are perfectly capable of acting as a form of transport.

end of the road wrote: »

there is no stymieing innovation

You apply a regulation that makes ride sharing impossible - then of course innovation is being stymied.

end of the road wrote: »

i would think people expect their taxi drivers to be serious operators with good knowledge

Good jaysus! Knowledge? I have no interest in a taxi driver talking shíte!:rolleyes:

end of the road wrote: »

and a good standard car.

See above - in many instances, uber cars are of a higher standard. Secondly, any car with an nct is secure and safe.

end of the road wrote: »

some student using his girlfriend's car and nonsense about empowerment doesn't cut it as a serious public transport operator.

who the *** are you to dictate to me what transport I want to access? Who are you to deprive someone like him the opportunity to go out and work for a few hours so that he can pay his way through college?

end of the road wrote: »

licence at a cost whichincludes admin but is enough to keep time wasters out.
is what we have, and it works.

Ah yeah, this is priceless. Keep timewasters out? You mean protectionism.

end of the road wrote: »

have you got a source for those claims?

Some here have stated they're taxi drivers.

Doesn't seem to be working as well at reducing congestion etc. in NY, San Fran and Chicago

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/companies/new-york-uber-lyft

makeorbrake wrote: »

it seems that most people against uber are taxi drivers.

makeorbrake wrote: »

many of you here are taxi drivers.

have you got a source for those claims?

markodaly wrote: »

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

both posts say different but related things which are both correct. the first one is in relation to the costs of the car. the second in relation to the fees to buy a taxi licence.

makeorbrake wrote: »

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.

they are structured to protect the customer.
a ride sharing service and a taxi are the same thing, they both transport people from a to b for a fee in return. i have shared a taxi multiple times with multiple people going to different places because the drivers happened to be going my way.
if there is such a major difference as you claim between uber and a taxi then there is no need to relax the taxi rules because uber can offer their different service. or, they can offer their ride sharing/taxi service within the taxi rules which are set out to insure decent standards for the user, something they are not prevented from, but are choosing, not to do.
it's perfectly reasonable to expect someone who is serious about providing a public transport service to the people to have to buy a high standard car to get that licence as that car will be able to take more fares due to being more accessible and it will show that the operator is serious about operating.
there is no stymieing innovation, and i would think people expect their taxi drivers to be serious operators with good knowledge and a good standard car. some student using his girlfriend's car and nonsense about empowerment doesn't cut it as a serious public transport operator.
background check.
nct.
licence at a cost whichincludes admin but is enough to keep time wasters out.
is what we have, and it works.

Deleted User wrote: »

Not my words, but thanks for the insult, speaks volumes about your agenda.

What agenda does he have? Is he in the industry? On the flip side, many of you here are taxi drivers. That's a real agenda.

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, to reiterate, a ride sharing service is no different than any other SPSV and as such falls under the same regulations.

It's NOT the same. You're sticking to your line on this but its disingenuous. You know perfectly well that uber facilitates people to go out and work dynamically using a car they otherwise use for personal use. It's designed for someone to share their car on a particular journey or for that person to work a few hours here or there. The moment regulation is structured to make people go out and buy a specific type of car, you render that model unworkable. Therefore, they're not the same thing.

Deleted User wrote: »

Literally the only thing left uber has is pricing, which thankfully, is dictated by the regulations to prevent price gouging or in ubers case, surge pricing.

And people would use them WHY if they're more expensive?

[Deleted User]

markodaly wrote: »

To spell it out again, Uber and their like is a ride-sharing service, which is not allowed in Ireland because of regulations. The barrier to enter the Taxi industry is just too expensive to ever warrant it to be called a ride-sharing service.

I get that some people like that, because they profit from it.
More fares, more volume, less competition, especially if you have an existing taxi license. Its a closed shop, at least be honest about it and not hide behind weasel mouthed words.

Not my words, but thanks for the insult, speaks volumes about your agenda.

Again, to reiterate, a ride sharing service is no different than any other SPSV and as such falls under the same regulations.

The full info from the NTA site is as follows

The National Transport Authority is responsible for the licensing and regulation of small public service vehicles (SPSVs) in Ireland. This refers collectively to taxis, wheelchair accessible taxis, hackneys, wheelchair accessible hackneys and limousines.

SPSVs are defined as vehicles capable of carrying for hire or reward a maximum of eight passengers in addition to the driver.

Uber fits the definition of SPSV, simple as.

The minimum requirements here are too high for uber however the market has seen the threat they could still pose and developed identical offerings (apps). As such there is no difference in the current offerings and the uber model.

Literally the only thing left uber has is pricing, which thankfully, is dictated by the regulations to prevent price gouging or in ubers case, surge pricing.

It should be noted that the uber pricing is based on burning through billions of capital each year to maintain artificially low prices in the hope of gaining market dominance at which point they increase the price to the detriment of customers

Deleted User wrote: »

They are vehicles that are available for hire or reward that can take passengers from a to b

That definition does not properly describe a ride sharing service. You know that already - which goes to serve my point.

Deleted User wrote: »

Uber fits that description too

See above.

Deleted User wrote: »

That you choose to so vigorously ignore the most basic fact speaks volumes about your agenda

Touche. Right back at you with the very same statement. As regards agenda, it seems that most people against uber are taxi drivers. There is a definite direct agenda there.
But you're quite right - I do have an agenda - as a consumer and someone who wants to see the conditions in place for innovation to flourish. Not to enrich myself directly.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

oh theres no question technology disrupts industries, but at what point does this disruption become destructive for our economies and societies?

I'm not seeing that in this instance. Workers are not being replaced. Potentially, ordinary people provide the ability to get from point A to point B because they want to go out and make a few quid at that particular time or they're going that direction.

So, I guess you want rigid hours to be available to the taxi guys. In this instance, I don't agree. I see the ability of technology to be useful to consumers and workers alike. Suppressing innovation doesn't help anyone in the long run.

[Deleted User]

makeorbrake wrote: »

You pick and choose to suit your narrative.

Uber is a ride sharing service.

Taxi's are different.

I don't do anything except paste a quote directly from the NTA website. That definition I gave does not differentiate between limos, hackneys, taxis etc. They are vehicles that are available for hire or reward that can take passengers from a to b

Uber fits that description too

There is no conspiracy. Its literally there in black and white

That you choose to so vigorously ignore the most basic fact speaks volumes about your agenda and makes further discussion with you pointless

hardCopy

markodaly wrote: »

That is like saying Airbnb should buy, own and operate actual physical BnB's or Hotels.....

To spell it out again, Uber and their like is a ride-sharing service, which is not allowed in Ireland because of regulations. The barrier to enter the Taxi industry is just too expensive to ever warrant it to be called a ride-sharing service.

I get that some people like that, because they profit from it.
More fares, more volume, less competition, especially if you have an existing taxi license. Its a closed shop, at least be honest about it and not hide behind weasel mouthed words.

As I live in Ireland, I don't travel in Ubers. Every photo or video I've ever seen of an Uber in the states has been a operating as a private hire vehicle. The driver may use the car to go about their own business after picking up some passengers, but they do not seem to share their commute, nor do multiple separate passengers share their commute.

The use of the term "ride-sharing" would seem distant from the current operating model of Uber.

It's an unofficial hackney app.

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

That is like saying Airbnb should buy, own and operate actual physical BnB's or Hotels.....

To spell it out again, Uber and their like is a ride-sharing service, which is not allowed in Ireland because of regulations. The barrier to enter the Taxi industry is just too expensive to ever warrant it to be called a ride-sharing service.

I get that some people like that, because they profit from it.
More fares, more volume, less competition, especially if you have an existing taxi license. Its a closed shop, at least be honest about it and not hide behind weasel mouthed words.

Wanderer78

makeorbrake wrote: »

Sometimes technology disrupts industries. it's as simple as that. The next wave in that respect will be driverless cars. That will require a whole host of people re-training and entering other sectors.

Of course, countries can ban it - but the smart ones embrace the change and become more efficient.

oh theres no question technology disrupts industries, but at what point does this disruption become destructive for our economies and societies? we dont live in this perfect world of equality, including equality of opportunity etc, i.e. we dont all have the same opportunities in life. you d be surprised how many sectors have been disrupted over the last couple of decades, and not just by new technologies, effectively exasperating worker security.

is potentially increasing worker insecurity really all that smart, as it is slowly destabilizing our societies, economically, politically, environmentally etc etc etc?