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!
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.
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.
Good jaysus! Knowledge? I have no interest in a taxi driver talking shíte!:rolleyes:
See above - in many instances, uber cars are of a higher standard. Secondly, any car with an nct is secure and safe.
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.
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.
Spook_ie wrote: » So you expect the taxi drivers lobbied 39 votes for and multi billion spender Uber to only lobby 6, get real
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.
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,
Spook_ie wrote: » Think knowledge is more likely to be routes orientated than general chit chat knowledge
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.
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.
end of the road wrote: » that's exactly what we have.
magicbastarder wrote: » 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.
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.
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
end of the road wrote: » 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.
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
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.
licence at a cost whichincludes admin but is enough to keep time wasters out. is what we have, and it works.
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. 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.
makeorbrake wrote: » money talks. 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: » 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.
markodaly wrote: » Afaik, the NTA doe not have a minimum standard of age for a Taxi. Many ridesharing platforms like Uber actually do.
There is a 15 year age limit on vehicles associated with certain licences as follows: – A standard taxi or hackney licence numbered below 45000 with which the vehicle has been continuously associated since 1 January 2013.
magicbastarder wrote: » reminds me of q colleague who once offered to buy the taxi after a taxi ride to the airport, because the taxi fare was - without question - more than the value of the car. IIRC, the taxi driver did not see the funny side.
Spook_ie wrote: » Yeah my first consideration is money, what in my post about not liking to sit in gridlock with an empty cab says I don't,
Spook_ie wrote: » you really think that a load of cabbie have more financial persuasion power than Uber, get real.
makeorbrake wrote: » Jaysus....mother bleedin' theresa. In the last couple of pages we seem to have 3 taxi drivers all hell bent on fiction. Nobody would pursue that fiction without a bigger motivator than the mother theresa angle..You mean Michael Cohen's buddy that owned 800 NY taxi licenses? Or Cohen himself who owns taxi licenses as part of his portfolio?
Spook_ie wrote: » Once again, what fiction I've told you I have no interest other than making a living, gridlock and me being stuck in it without a paying passenger doesn't help me realise better profits.
Spook_ie wrote: » Ireland says so after it's failed deregulation between 2003 and 2005 led to a drop in standards because of a free for all and that was when it cost €6500 for a license and the bringing in of the Taxi Regulator now part of the NTA to solve it, and now you'd like them to reverse it just because "Gig Economy" are the new buzz words to throw around.
Spook_ie wrote: » As to Cohen and Freidmen, any more straws you'd like to pull from the ground after all the net worth for their medallions was something like zilch, 2 years before the NYC council decided that enough was enough from Uber, maybe they wrote them IOUs, or maybe the NY councils actually know something about running cities and sustainable transport infrastructure!
makeorbrake wrote: » So your first consideration is money - that colours your view as regards uber. What free for all! You know well that the current setup effectively nullifies uber across the board - so when you talk about unlimited, we are not allowing any in real terms. And as regards your attitude as regards 'gig economy', I have no time for the dismissal of an innovative approach just because you want to make more money! I like the idea that anyone can use their own car and go out and work dynamically for an hour here or there. The point was that you said that any vote in NY re. taxi's and uber could only possibly be above board. The example given shows that money talks - these two have been proven to be motivated by money.
Spook_ie wrote: » And your view is you want cheaper travel, more drivers and vehicles on the road and allowing a general free for all, I suppose your view isn't colored at all?
Spook_ie wrote: » As I said there were so many complaints that the taxi regulation office was brought into existence.
Spook_ie wrote: » As regards today's set up, there is NO limit to the amount of WATs or limousines you can put on the road, just meet the requirements.
Spook_ie wrote: » And your view is you want cheaper travel, more drivers and vehicles on the road and allowing a general free for all, I suppose your view isn't colored at all? In 2003 until the Taxi regulation act came in there was a free for all in that there were no restrictions to who could/couldn't put a taxi on the road, all you needed were suitable insurance, a roadworthy vehicle with solid roof and four doors ( yes that was the actual requirements under the legislation of the day ) if you had a drivers license €3 ( yes €3 not a misprint ) and could prove to the PSV inspector of whatever region you wanted to work that you knew the basics, away you went. As I said there were so many complaints that the taxi regulation office was brought into existence. As regards today's set up, there is NO limit to the amount of WATs or limousines you can put on the road, just meet the requirements.
Eric Cartman wrote: » and what were the complaints based on though ? the vehicles had to be roadworthy , on the street you can choose a cab, elsewhere you can have ranks / apps that specify what they want. I'd much rather a lad came to get me in a 2003 s-class than a brand new dacia. I know the biggest complaint at the time was from other taxi drivers peeved that 'de niiiiigeeeriaaannnss' had come to steal all their jobs, still to this day I get in a taxi with an irish lad from the old school who normally still have the 'tacsai' sign on their roof and they'll wait about 40 seconds before saying something about the nigerians all scamming people for longer fares or robbing people etc.. Im sure a lot of the complaints from normal people were about going the wrong way etc.. not really an issue anymore in the gps enabled app economy.
makeorbrake wrote: » I don't think it's at all the same in comparison. Yes, regardless of the topic, everyone brings their own opinions, biases, etc into the conversation. However, I don't stand to benefit from this one way or the other as I don't currently live in Ireland. Secondly, even when I did (and if I do again), I wouldn't be in an area where taxi's or uber come into play anyway. Therefore, my interest is such that I like what ride-sharing can bring. I don't like opportunities to benefit from innovation and technology to be squandered and I don't like the idea that Ireland always has to lag when it comes to adoption of various advancements. That's not an equal comparison with your scenario where you benefit directly if there are no ubers on the road. As regards you putting words in my mouth as regards me wanting a 'free for all', that's not accurate. Again, this is all to advance your own position. See above. I'm not suggesting deregulation. I'm suggesting that there is actual regulation for ride-sharing services because despite what you say, there certainly isnt right now. There are taxi regulations. There's no consideration of ride sharing. You keep on repeating the same nonsense and it's completely and utterly disingenuous. There is NO regulation for ride-sharing services. Everyone knows that if someone has to go out and spend 15k on a specific vehicle, that automatically precludes the notion of ride-sharing. I have no issue with regulation. The issue is that there is no regulation - those requirements are set for taxi services - its as clear as night and day.
Spook_ie wrote: » There is no requirement for Uber style ride sharing being provided by non licensed vehicles in Ireland save in your mind, ride sharing in Ireland where desired by the users is provided by duly licensed vehicles and drivers.##
Spook_ie wrote: » You are however free to lobby the NTA to get them to change their mind and opt for unlicensed drivers and vehicles or whatever you might think fits the Uber bill or ride sharing in general as I'm sure that Lyft and Mytaxi would welcome additional revenue streams as much as Uber, in fact the NTA actually welcome suggestions from people who use the services of Irish public transport systems, maybe they'll even read suggestions from people who don't avail of the services here for whatever reason.https://www.nationaltransport.ie/public-consultations/
EU Court of Justice ruled Uber is to be considered as a transport services companyhttps://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/20/uber-european-court-of-justice-ruling-barcelona-taxi-drivers-ecj-eu Uber is a transport services company, the European court of justice (ECJ) has ruled, requiring it to accept stricter regulation and licensing within the EU as a taxi operator
Spook_ie wrote: » There is no requirement for Uber style ride sharing being provided by non licensed vehicles in Ireland save in your mind, ride sharing in Ireland where desired by the users is provided by duly licensed vehicles and drivers. You are however free to lobby the NTA to get them to change their mind and opt for unlicensed drivers and vehicles or whatever you might think fits the Uber bill or ride sharing in general as I'm sure that Lyft and Mytaxi would welcome additional revenue streams as much as Uber, in fact the NTA actually welcome suggestions from people who use the services of Irish public transport systems, maybe they'll even read suggestions from people who don't avail of the services here for whatever reason.https://www.nationaltransport.ie/public-consultations/
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
