makeorbrake wrote: » Definitely a major factor, yes (but not the only one). However, who are you to dictate what service I choose to use? Market forces and supply and demand dictate the price of everything.
makeorbrake wrote: » Thanks at least for the admission that it is a deliberate blocking exercise. Otherwise, of course it matters! You want me as a consumer to discern between what you believe is a 'serious' driver and a 'time waster'? Give me a break. If the driver reviews badly, I don't have to use said driver and said service.
makeorbrake wrote: » Think about what you're suggesting. You are TELLING consumers what their wants/needs are. That's not how that dynamic works.
makeorbrake wrote: » Then pack up and do something else.
makeorbrake wrote: » Protectionism never works and it's not good for society as a whole either.
makeorbrake wrote: » As regards less money, less spend, you're mistaken. It's a case of more efficient spend of the same pool of money - making for a more efficient society and economy - which in turn benefits as it competes with neighbouring economies.
makeorbrake wrote: » Which you've already admitted have been willfully constructed as a barrier to their entry into the market.
makeorbrake wrote: » However, who are you to dictate what service I choose to use? Market forces and supply and demand dictate the price of everything.
end of the road wrote: » you don't need to have skin in the game to be concerned that treating uber differently to any other cars transporting people for money in return would cause issues.
end of the road wrote: » because they have busses, their own car, trains, etc. if they are accessing taxis
end of the road wrote: » upskill and retrain isn't always viable or cost effective either financially or otherwise.
end of the road wrote: » people should not have to upskill or retrain because of a company which expects to be given an unfair market advantage, via being treated differently to other similar operations because it has a few differences and calls itself ride sharing rather then taxi, which in my experience have been happy to provide ride sharing if a number of people are going to places along the route where the longest traveler is going. uber can compete in ireland, it just has to actually compete within the rules like anyone else.
end of the road wrote: » because they are cheaper. nothing more. they probably wouldn't be cheaper if they had to abide by the same regulations as all other cars transporting people for money.
end of the road wrote: » doesn't matter. it is going to insure the fleet is all wheelchair accessable. if that keeps out the not so serious players and time wasters then that is a good thing.
end of the road wrote: » but does not provide a good living wage so that someone can actually cover their costs of living. so no, the gig economy as a whole does not create a good economy because less money = less spend = less tax take and so on.
end of the road wrote: » absolutely nothing stopping those people from doing that in ireland. they just have to follow the regulations which exist to protect the customer and insure high standards.
makeorbrake wrote: » I use "disrupt" rather than "undermine" - but if you've got skin in the game, I can see how you may be aggrieved.
makeorbrake wrote: » If 'training' is to such a high standard, then why are people not accessing taxi services? Do you mean the training to talk absolute ****e for the duration of the trip?
makeorbrake wrote: » Is every single taxi wheelchair accessible?
makeorbrake wrote: » I get it but in today's world, industries are being constantly disrupted. Upskill/retrain and move on.
makeorbrake wrote: » You're suggesting that taxi services are an upgrade by comparison with ride sharing services as a result of 'training'. If that's the case, why (in markets that have not tried to suppress ride sharing) have people made the switch en-masse to ride sharing?
makeorbrake wrote: » Designed in as a barrier to entry and not the altruism you make it out to be.
makeorbrake wrote: » That's not true. If you think it's not an advantage to an economy and it's people to facilitate the gig economy, then you are mistaken. It makes for a far more agile and efficient economy. It provides the potential for a more efficient use of existing resources (human and car fleet).
makeorbrake wrote: » The ability of someone to go out and bootstrap themselves up - working a few additional hours as a time that suits them, on their own terms - is excellent. I've met students who have borrowed a car for the holidays to work. I've met guys that were simply driving in the same direction and switched on the app to earn a few extra quid. Those are not one offs - that's on an ongoing basis (and of course, that's not in Ireland).
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Yeah, disrupt is cool and trendy, and avoids the long term thinking about how these moves impact society at large and who really benefits in the long run.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I'm not sure I see the connection between training and 'not accessing tax services'. Doctors get loads of training, but people only go to the doctor when they have to. It's kinda the same for taxi services.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » A trained driver knows that one of the customer rights is 'quiet enjoyment of their journey', unlike the bus driver or shop worker desperate to supplement their income from their retail zero hours contract.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Every new taxi licence for the past four or five years is indeed for a wheelchair accessible vehicle under the scheme where the cost is subsidised by the State. It's a fairly smart way of moving towards a fully accessible fleet - just one of the measures that would be undermined by letting Uber loose..
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Except this isn't 'industry disruption'. Uber drivers don't do anything better than existing drivers. They only thing they disrupt is regulation, and the possibility of making a decent living wage.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Except for the bit about how this completely undermines the industry.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » and the work that has gone on over the past decade or so to improve standards by ensuring that drivers are trained and meet required standards.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » make sure taxi services are usable by everybody, including wheelchair users, people with guide dogs and assistance dogs and more.
makeorbrake wrote: » On the gig economy, I've seen many instances where people are empowered to go out and work for a few hours here or there as suits their needs....(not in ireland of course). I like the idea that someone can decide to simply switch on the app and work if they need to supplement income, etc. It should also be noted that this makes for a far more progressive economy.
magicbastarder wrote: » Uber’s Path of Destructionhttps://americanaffairsjournal.org/2019/05/ubers-path-of-destruction/
In reality, Uber’s platform does not include any technological breakthroughs, and Uber has done nothing to “disrupt” the economics of providing urban car services. What Uber has disrupted is the idea that competitive consumer and capital markets will maximize overall economic welfare by rewarding companies with superior efficiency. Its multibillion dollar subsidies completely distorted marketplace price and service signals, leading to a massive misallocation of resources. Uber’s most important innovation has been to produce staggering levels of private wealth without creating any sustainable benefits for consumers, workers, the cities they serve, or anyone else.
n97 mini wrote: » The rural licences, even though cheaper, have been a failure. Only 14 in the whole country as of mid 2016 according to the IT. Probably even less now as 18 licences were originally issued. I wonder what's stopping Uber registering as a dispatch operator. The Clare Uber thing is newer. Check the link in my post above.
n97 mini wrote: » So the fares could be based on what UberX estimates. That's curious. Why are the likes of Clare Co Council considering introducing and "Uber like" system when it sounds like Uber+hackneys could fill that gap.https://drcd.gov.ie/rural-uber-type-car-pooling-app-shows-that-clare-is-thinking-ahead-minister-ring/ I've several rural based friends who had hackneys years ago, but now there are none. Indeed where I live in Leixlip, about 15 years ago there were three cab companies, predominantly served by hackneys. Now there's only one firm and the drivers are all taxis.
Losty Dublin wrote: » There ares still Hackney's, yes. Rare in the cities and older metered areas as taxi plates were generally available and better for work and what passengers were used to seeing, more common in taxi-less towns and in rural areas. Hackneys can use ÜberX in Ireland but they and their drivers still need to be licensed as per Irish Laws and adhere to agreed fares when booked or hired.
n97 mini wrote: » I used Uber extensively in the US in 2016 but in the intervening years Lyft had arrived and I found that in some cities by 2018 Lyft cars outnumbered Uber 4 to 1. So it doesn't really have a monopoly. I've used it extensively in NI and Britain too. As mentioned above it can be a lot easier to get an Uber than a taxi, e.g. outside Manchester Piccadilly there can be long queues for taxis. Obviously there is no queue for Uber. Cheaper too. Are Hackney licences still a thing? They seem to be available from doing a quick google, but I haven't seen one in years. I'd have thought they'd be compatible with UberX.
n97 mini wrote: » I used Uber extensively in the US in 2016 but in the intervening years Lyft had arrived and I found that in some cities by 2018 Lyft cars outnumbered Uber 4 to 1. So it doesn't really have a monopoly.
Spook_ie wrote: » Doesn't seem to be downloadable in Ireland, probably because of Ireland's metered fare policy, you pay only up to the maximum metered fare, if you bid and offer a lower than metered fare you must still run the meter and charge the agreed fare.
makeorbrake wrote: » What a very progressive line for them to take! In recent weeks, I've moved from using Uber to INdriver. INdriver puts a different twist on car pooling - with customers having the ability to offer an amount for a fare. The drivers come back in real time and either match that price or counter-offer. It's a very interesting approach and one that's going to disrupt the disrupter. Whilst I love the innovation that Uber has brought, their market dominance is letting them get away with murder (the only murder that's involved here!). Here, they're taking up to 30% from the driver. I don't think its reasonable for this to go above 20%. With INdriver, I'm getting better fares - whilst the driver is getting a better deal also. Furthermore, I get to see what car the driver has and can select a car on that basis.
markodaly wrote: » Uber style scheme would put users at risk of MURDER!!
fullstop wrote: » Not true. I often try to get a taxi to pay by card when landing at Dublin airport and often have to wait until 15 or 20 have passed through before they can find one that takes cards. And MyTaxi is not the same thing, if that’s what you were referring to. It’s also a **** app.
Rotweiler wrote: » Can we not be a UBER driver without a taxi licence in Dublin now?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
