Uber

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.

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. And I have zero skin in the game - I had a peripheral involvement in transport policy some years back, but not now.

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?

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.

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.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Is every single taxi wheelchair accessible?

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.

makeorbrake wrote: »

I get it but in today's world, industries are being constantly disrupted. Upskill/retrain and move on.

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: »

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.

Disruption happens as a market reacts to an innovation. Whether you classify it as 'cool and trendy' is neither here nor there. That there are societal impacts from technological changes, good and bad - of course there are.

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.

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?

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.

Shouldn't people themselves be the judge of that? After every ride share, I'm prompted to review. I can also review the experiences of others as regards a particular driver - a feature which proves to be useful. Drivers get the feedback.

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..

Designed in as a barrier to entry and not the altruism you make it out to be.

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.

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).

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).

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?

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.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Designed in as a barrier to entry and not the altruism you make it out to be.

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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?

because they have busses, their own car, trains, etc. if they are accessing taxis

makeorbrake wrote: »

Is every single taxi wheelchair accessible?

almost i believe. the fleet is getting there.

makeorbrake wrote: »

I get it but in today's world, industries are being constantly disrupted. Upskill/retrain and move on.

upskill and retrain isn't always viable or cost effective either financially or otherwise. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Think about what you're suggesting. You are TELLING consumers what their wants/needs are. That's not how that dynamic works.

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.

Then pack up and do something else. Protectionism never works and it's not good for society as a whole either.
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.

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.

Which you've already admitted have been willfully constructed as a barrier to their entry into the market.

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.

You mean treating uber differently by going out of your way to block uber drivers from tapping in to the market - as the regulator has done on behalf of taxi-drivers? Consumer always comes first.

end of the road wrote: »

because they have busses, their own car, trains, etc. if they are accessing taxis

no idea what point you're making there..

end of the road wrote: »

upskill and retrain isn't always viable or cost effective either financially or otherwise.

It's a fact of life. I'm not suggesting it's easy - but most industries and most people are going to be faced with it (or have been already). Some industries shouldn't have protectionism in place and not others - that's not equitable.

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.

And in taking this stance, you are throwing out the opportunity for society to derive the benefit from ride sharing. As above, you're dictating to consumers as to what service they want. That's not how markets are supposed to work.

Above someone makes the point that taxi drivers are better trained, better cars better standard. I don't agree that there's such a difference but it should be up to the consumer to decide which is better for them. Markets tend to be efficient that way.

magicbastarder

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.

Uh, lots of prices are regulated, not just taxi prices.

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.

i'm not dictating anything. you can use whatever service you like. however the service provider does not have a god given right to have the market organised in their favour at the expence of others, which from what i can see uber expects to happen. thankfully ireland have so far said no . uber can come here if it wants, nothing or nobody is stopping them apart from themselves, because again from what i can see, they don't want to actually compete.

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.

it's nothing of the sort. i admitted nothing. there are no barriers to entry, people entering simply have to abide by regulations is all. if those people find that a barrier then they aren't required or needed as there are plenty of others who have no problem in abiding by regulations.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Think about what you're suggesting. You are TELLING consumers what their wants/needs are. That's not how that dynamic works.

i have thought about it. i am not telling consumers what their wants and needs are. they are saying themselves that they want standards hence we have the regulations we have. all based on the consumer's wants and needs.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Then pack up and do something else.

often that is not viable as already explained.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Protectionism never works and it's not good for society as a whole either.

there is no protectionism. however if we were to go your way we would have a market which is rigged in favour of 1 operator which in itself could be potentially classed as protectionism.

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.

nope. if someone has less money, then they aren't going to spend it on as much, hence the economy loses out. meanwhile it is the likes of uber making their money and taking probably most of it back home (which they are entitled to do) but it is also not so good for the economy.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Which you've already admitted have been willfully constructed as a barrier to their entry into the market.

no i haven't. they have not been constructed as a barrier to entry. those who are not willing to compete on a level playing field have decided of their own accord that they are a barrier to entry. for others the regulations and standards are not a problem and are not a barrier to entry.

makeorbrake wrote: »

You mean treating uber differently by going out of your way to block uber drivers from tapping in to the market - as the regulator has done on behalf of taxi-drivers? Consumer always comes first.

the regulator has done no such thing. nobody is specifically blocked from entering the market. some are choosing not to enter which is their decision.

makeorbrake wrote: »

It's a fact of life. I'm not suggesting it's easy - but most industries and most people are going to be faced with it (or have been already). Some industries shouldn't have protectionism in place and not others - that's not equitable.

some industries have to have protectionism in place to insure they actually can exist to do what is a necessary job, but is not viable via market forces. the taxi industry however is not an industry that has protectionism, but has regulation, as do many things in life, which is massively equitable and vital.

makeorbrake wrote: »

And in taking this stance, you are throwing out the opportunity for society to derive the benefit from ride sharing. As above, you're dictating to consumers as to what service they want. That's not how markets are supposed to work.

ride sharing can happen. it already does from time to time with existing taxis. the person who wants to do a few hours here and there also can do that if they wish by going through the relevant channels. so no, i'm not throwing out the benefits of ride sharing, it can already happen.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Above someone makes the point that taxi drivers are better trained, better cars better standard. I don't agree that there's such a difference but it should be up to the consumer to decide which is better for them. Markets tend to be efficient that way.

not always. and no, it shouldn't be simply left up to the consumer to decide for example, what standard of vehicle they get into. vehicles transporting people for money should have their standards regulated and those which do not fit that should be prohibited from operating, or slowly removed from circulation as time goes on where they meet a current standard but not a future one.

LuckyLloyd

Ah yes, the glorious market of supply and demand. So why have Uber to spend billions subsidising rides? Is it because normal rules of supply and demand don’t infact support their model?

n97 mini

Those that oppose Uber (or Lyft)... Have you ever used them, and if so was it more than once?

Who gives a feck if it's subsidised... It's not your money that's doing the subsidising. Make hay while the sun shines.

We've had plenty of taxi scandals down through the years, from almost 200 illegals most recently, to another chap being told he couldn't carry women in the front, to the monk, the penguin, etc, being given licences as they had nothing else. So don't claim taxi drivers are squeaky clean.

magicbastarder wrote: »

Uh, lots of prices are regulated, not just taxi prices.

That doesn't make it right - and it doesn't make it in the general interests of the consumer. The regulator is acting in a protectionist role for those of you driving taxis.

end of the road wrote: »

i'm not dictating anything. you can use whatever service you like. however the service provider does not have a god given right to have the market organised in their favour at the expence of others, which from what i can see uber expects to happen. thankfully ireland have so far said no . uber can come here if it wants, nothing or nobody is stopping them apart from themselves, because again from what i can see, they don't want to actually compete.

People are NOT free to choose whatever service they like. You keep hiding behind the skirt tails of the regulator. Dumping ride sharing in with taxi regulation is just plain wrong.

end of the road wrote: »

it's nothing of the sort. i admitted nothing. there are no barriers to entry, people entering simply have to abide by regulations is all. if those people find that a barrier then they aren't required or needed as there are plenty of others who have no problem in abiding by regulations.

That's totally untrue. There is a major barrier to entry that has been consciously put in place to block ride sharing (and to appease you guys...err, I mean taxi drivers). How many jurisdictions have this very same regulation (precisely this regulation)?

end of the road wrote: »

i have thought about it. i am not telling consumers what their wants and needs are. they are saying themselves that they want standards hence we have the regulations we have. all based on the consumer's wants and needs.

You've had quite a few people say on this thread that they want to use ride sharing services and that believe this is protectionism. If we put up a poll on boards (by agreement in terms of how it's worded), you're confident that it will carry and boardsters will vote in favour of not having ride sharing available to them?

end of the road wrote: »

often that is not viable as already explained.

What sort of fantasy land are you living in? If I worked for Dell a few years back and they turned around to me and said, we're making you redundant as we're not competitive in Ireland in manufacturing, you think I could have turned around to them and said 'eh, no you can't - It's not 'feasible' for me'?

I empathise that having to find a new means of employment is difficult but these are challenges we all face in today's world. I've had to change my line of work a few times already and my working life has a bit to go just yet.

end of the road wrote: »

there is no protectionism. however if we were to go your way we would have a market which is rigged in favour of 1 operator which in itself could be potentially classed as protectionism.

Sure there is. There's appeasement of taxi drivers in play - which equals protectionism. As regards want something 'rigged', ridesharing deserves its own regulation - and yes, that will affect you taxi men - and Im sorry - but that's just the reality.

end of the road wrote: »

nope. if someone has less money, then they aren't going to spend it on as much, hence the economy loses out. meanwhile it is the likes of uber making their money and taking probably most of it back home (which they are entitled to do) but it is also not so good for the economy.

This is classic paddy-nomics. If I have €500 to spend in a week and by switching from taxi to ride sharing service, i end up with more in my pocket, it will be spent elsewhere. The consumer wins, the economy wins - and the economy is more competitive off the back of it.
As regards uber making money, they provide a service they should be paid for it. We decided in Ireland a long time ago we'd have an open economy - if they want to repatriate that money, that's their business. There's nothing stopping another company offering the same service. As I mentioned, I don't use uber where I live. I use indriver. That's the beauty of competition.

end of the road wrote: »

no i haven't. they have not been constructed as a barrier to entry. those who are not willing to compete on a level playing field have decided of their own accord that they are a barrier to entry. for others the regulations and standards are not a problem and are not a barrier to entry.

You talk of a 'level playing field' when ride sharing and taxi'ing are not the same thing. There should be separate regulation for each of them. If it was a level playing field, why can't I get an uber/lyft/etc. in Ireland.

end of the road wrote: »

the regulator has done no such thing. nobody is specifically blocked from entering the market. some are choosing not to enter which is their decision.

That's incorrect ..and lets just agree to disagree or else we'll keep going round in circles. I'm quite happy that you won't change your mind on that - but likewise, I won't be changing mine either.

end of the road wrote: »

some industries have to have protectionism in place to insure they actually can exist to do what is a necessary job, but is not viable via market forces. the taxi industry however is not an industry that has protectionism, but has regulation, as do many things in life, which is massively equitable and vital.

Good regulation supports innovation - bad regulation the opposite. Taxi drivers are being appeased by the regulator - resulting in what amounts to protectionism.

end of the road wrote: »

ride sharing can happen. it already does from time to time with existing taxis. the person who wants to do a few hours here and there also can do that if they wish by going through the relevant channels. so no, i'm not throwing out the benefits of ride sharing, it can already happen.

Rubbish. We have an existing car fleet of cars which pass a regular road-worthiness test. The regulation consciously cuts off the vast majority of that car fleet (and accompanying drivers) from facilitating ride sharing as it was originally intended.
If the regulator has not stymied innovation, WHERE is the ride sharing? If you're going to say 'because they choose not to, then how come more progressive countries have it? Ireland of the high standards...:rolleyes:

end of the road wrote: »

not always. and no, it shouldn't be simply left up to the consumer to decide for example, what standard of vehicle they get into. vehicles transporting people for money should have their standards regulated and those which do not fit that should be prohibited from operating, or slowly removed from circulation as time goes on where they meet a current standard but not a future one.

I see. So responsible you is going to dictate to me what I want in terms of a service? I don't want to use a taxi ever again. I want to access ride sharing services. Cars pass a stringent test here - they're road worthy.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Ah yes, the glorious market of supply and demand. So why have Uber to spend billions subsidising rides? Is it because normal rules of supply and demand don’t infact support their model?

Markets are efficient. If their model is unsustainable, then they will fail - simple as that. Uber doesn't need to be the only show in town - I use ride sharing every day of the week but have hardly used uber in 2019.

magicbastarder

makeorbrake wrote: »

That doesn't make it right - and it doesn't make it in the general interests of the consumer. The regulator is acting in a protectionist role for those of you driving taxis.

ah yes, the market always acts in the interests of the consumer. how many people still believe this?

magicbastarder wrote: »

ah yes, the market always acts in the interests of the consumer. how many people still believe this?

I didn't say that I wasn't in favour of regulation. However, I'm not in favour of the irish form of regulation which currently achieves three things:

1. Puts Ireland behind the curve in terms of embracing innovation.

2. Deprives irish consumers the choice they deserve.

3. Achieves 1 and 2 above by appeasing taxi drivers.

magicbastarder

makeorbrake wrote: »

The regulator is acting in a protectionist role for those of you driving taxis.

just regarding this comment, lest there be any confusion - i'm not a taxi driver. and there's plenty of opinions i have on the topic which would have me ejected from a taxi quickly enough (such as whether taxis should be allowed use bus lanes as an obvious one)

n97 mini wrote: »

Those that oppose Uber (or Lyft)... Have you ever used them, and if so was it more than once?

Who gives a feck if it's subsidised... It's not your money that's doing the subsidising. Make hay while the sun shines.
.

So we should change the model of regulation to suit an unsustainable business model?

n97 mini wrote: »

We've had plenty of taxi scandals down through the years, from almost 200 illegals most recently, to another chap being told he couldn't carry women in the front, to the monk, the penguin, etc, being given licences as they had nothing else. So don't claim taxi drivers are squeaky clean
.

Just exactly how much worse do you want to make it?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So we should change the model of regulation to suit an unsustainable business model?

No, they're two different things. It's quite common when something totally innovative emerges that it either needs its own regulation or an update of existing regulations. Ride sharing is not taxi-ing. It needs its own regulation.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Just exactly how much worse do you want to make it?

He's given a list of reasons why this 'high standards professional service, fully trained driver malarkey hasn't proven to be the case down through the years. A few months ago, I stepped into a taxi as I couldn't get an uber or indriver. The driver proceeded to take the scenic route home. I have not been in a taxi since then.

makeorbrake wrote: »

No, they're two different things. It's quite common when something totally innovative emerges that it either needs its own regulation or an update of existing regulations. Ride sharing is not taxi-ing. It needs its own regulation.

Ride-sharing is cheap taxi-ing - cheap because it avoids a couple of decades work to bring up the standard of drivers and standard of vehicles. It is clearly unsustainable. Why should regulators and legislators put months of effort into place to accommodate a bubble that is bound to burst? They would be better spending their time to continue to develop the standards and capacity of the current fleet.

makeorbrake wrote: »

He's given a list of reasons why this 'high standards professional service, fully trained driver malarkey hasn't proven to be the case down through the years. A few months ago, I stepped into a taxi as I couldn't get an uber or indriver. The driver proceeded to take the scenic route home. I have not been in a taxi since then.

So one driver did something bad therefore the whole model of industry regulation is unnecessary? My GP missed a diagnosis once, so should we stop regulating doctors and let anyone do it?

The good news is that once you report that driver to the regulator showing the receipt, they will be able to investigate and take serious action. One driver was fined €2k for refusing to take a passenger with a guide dog some years back. These guys don't mess around. You did report them, right?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Ride-sharing is cheap taxi-ing - cheap because it avoids a couple of decades work to bring up the standard of drivers and standard of vehicles. It is clearly unsustainable.

It is cheaper than taking a taxi - yes. But it is NOT taxi-ing. If I have a need to drive between points A and B, I should be in a position to open up an app (be it Uber or something else), switch it on - and ride share as a driver or as a passenger. That's NOT taxi-ing.

Now, HOW is that unsustainable? Uber may be unsustainable but if it is, it will fizzle out. Ride sharing generally is totally sustainable - that's the whole point.

Taxi'ing has become unsustainable in parts of the world and that seems to be the concern of most here for whatever reason...

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why should regulators and legislators put months of effort into place to accommodate a bubble that is bound to burst? They would be better spending their time to continue to develop the standards and capacity of the current fleet.

Because they have a duty to citizens to ensure that the country benefits from innovation. Ride sharing generally is no 'bubble'. Uber is not the only show in town.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So one driver did something bad therefore the whole model of industry regulation is unnecessary? My GP missed a diagnosis once, so should we stop regulating doctors and let anyone do it?

With indriver, I don't have to check if the driver is going the scenic route. The difference is that your GP didn't try to deliberately %!£$ you! - whereas in my case the taxi-man did try to %3$" me.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The good news is that once you report that driver to the regulator showing the receipt, they will be able to investigate and take serious action. One driver was fined €2k for refusing to take a passenger with a guide dog some years back. These guys don't mess around. You did report them, right?

Yeah? Well here's the thing. 1. He got paid what I told him he was getting paid (although I didn't much enjoy the argument that necessitated ) and 2. I already presented you with the solution - I don't and won't take a taxi - I'll use ride sharing as I do 99.9% of the time already in any case.

makeorbrake wrote: »

It is cheaper than taking a taxi - yes. But it is NOT taxi-ing. If I have a need to drive between points A and B, I should be in a position to open up an app (be it Uber or something else), switch it on - and ride share as a driver or as a passenger. That's NOT taxi-ing.

There's nothing innovative about ordering by app. Loads of taxi companies have ordering by app available. Hailo/MyTaxi have been doing it for years now, and others have come on board too. There's nothing innovative about drivers choosing their own working hours. This has been the way the industry worked for years. Some people worked nights, some people did early morning airport runs - horses for courses.

The only 'innovation' with Uber and their peers is avoiding regulation - going back 10-20 years where drivers were using their own family cars for taxiing. The industry regulators have been working to improve standards for these ten years, and you want to push back all the progress in quality.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Now, HOW is that unsustainable? Uber may be unsustainable but if it is, it will fizzle out. Ride sharing generally is totally sustainable - that's the whole point.

Taxi'ing has become unsustainable in parts of the world and that seems to be the concern of most here for whatever reason...

makeorbrake wrote: »

Because they have a duty to citizens to ensure that the country benefits from innovation. Ride sharing generally is no 'bubble'. Uber is not the only show in town.

It's unsustainable because the current business model is barely sustainable. Cutting fares by 40% or more makes it unsustainable. This might work for a while as long as Uber investors are happy to subsisdise, or as long as there is a queue of suckers desperate to get into the sector, but it is not workable in the long term. It's like 'suicide bids' in the construction sector, where builders are squeezed to submit unsustainable bids, then they crash out, and the project ends up costing much more in the long term. Cheapest is not always best.

makeorbrake wrote: »

With indriver, I don't have to check if the driver is going the scenic route. The difference is that your GP didn't try to deliberately %!£$ you! - whereas in my case the taxi-man did try to %3$" me.

Yeah? Well here's the thing. 1. He got paid what I told him he was getting paid (although I didn't much enjoy the argument that necessitated ) and 2. I already presented you with the solution - I don't and won't take a taxi - I'll use ride sharing as I do 99.9% of the time already in any case.

It sounds like your incident didn't happen in Ireland if your alternative is Uber. If overcharging does happen in Ireland, the driver will be severly penalised when this is reported to the Regulator. If he tries it again, he'll lose his licence. This industry is severely regulated - just talk to any driver about the regulator to see their reaction.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There's nothing innovative about ordering by app. Loads of taxi companies have ordering by app available. Hailo/MyTaxi have been doing it for years now, and others have come on board too.

That's not true. You know well consumers like accessing such services via an app. It's the very definition of innovation when some guys roll in with a certain approach and then the incumbents or those in a related industry copy it!

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There's nothing innovative about drivers choosing their own working hours. This has been the way the industry worked for years. Some people worked nights, some people did early morning airport runs - horses for courses.

The ability for anyone to go and work a few hours on a gig economy basis is the core of this innovation and you're doing your very best to misrepresent it!
Furthermore, the efficiency that people, urban centres and economies can derive from ride sharing (when properly executed) is not something that should be passed over.

If you were already doing it, there wouldn't be any conflict, would there? Practically every single post on this thread from the naysayers defaults to the fact that you CANT use your family car. That's what's being blocked deliberately and consciously to appease the taxi driver lobby.

I've seen it week in, week out. Drivers that go on the clock for a few hours - or more importantly, as they were just travelling that direction anyway ...and it's on that last basis, that the true power of ride sharing can be realised for the mutual benefit of all.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The only 'innovation' with Uber and their peers is avoiding regulation - going back 10-20 years where drivers were using their own family cars for taxiing. The industry regulators have been working to improve standards for these ten years, and you want to push back all the progress in quality.

Like a broken record - back to the same old garbage. Yes, we need regulation - but not regulation that has been setup to appease the taxi lobby - rather regulation that is pro-innovation. As stated previously, ride sharing is not taxi-ing - and deserves its own regulation.

You (and others here) keep hiding behind 'regulation' and 'quality' when the only thing that lies behind the motivation of most naysayers is self interest.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's unsustainable because the current business model is barely sustainable. . . It's like 'suicide bids' in the construction sector, where builders are squeezed to submit unsustainable bids, then they crash out, and the project ends up costing much more in the long term. Cheapest is not always best.

Ok, so if its unsustainable, what have you got to worry about? Uber will die off and you guys can work away as normal. Whilst there may be an argument here (as stated previously I don't want to see a ride sharing market dominated by uber) - i'm not inclined to go down that road on this discussion because its patently obvious that there is NO form of ride sharing that taxi-men will find acceptable (other than the one that makes it impossible to run in Ireland as per your pro-taxi 'regulation').

As regards the construction business analogy you use, let me do the same. I can go out and contract a builder and get prices - from expensive, average to cheap - and make a decision myself as to whom I contract. That's not the scenario here with this nonsense you're going with - about quality and standards (when in reality, your average taxi-man couldnt give a fiddlers about such things...other than that its now a flag of protectionist convenience).

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It sounds like your incident didn't happen in Ireland if your alternative is Uber. If overcharging does happen in Ireland, the driver will be severly penalised when this is reported to the Regulator. If he tries it again, he'll lose his licence. This industry is severely regulated - just talk to any driver about the regulator to see their reaction.

It didn't happen in Ireland - never suggested that it did. I didn't say that I was 'overcharged' - I said that he took the scenic route which resulted in me paying more (or according to him should have done but I wasn't playing).

So you say in Ireland with it's high standards that there are consequences for this? Well, who wants to be bothered engaging with such a process when you can use a service like indriver and never have to worry about a driver trying to rip you off in terms of routing?

So when visitors come to the country and get in to an irish taxi, are they blown away at the standard by comparison with the uber/lyft services they access in their home countries? Really? Is that what you're going with?

Markcheese

I'm pretty sure uber are in the Irish market...
(my sister uses them every time she's in Dublin)
Its just an ordinary cab shows up.. Because if you offer a cab or taxi (or limo) service in Ireland it has to be a public service vehicle does the work...
Incidentally, I assume uber don't pay for the motor /taxi insurance for the trip, because regular car insurance doesn't include driving for hire or reward... If they covered that it'd probably be worth individuals getting psv licences, and car inspected,just to drive on Friday and Saturday nights...

I really am laughing out loud at folks going on about taxi drivers being highly trained and the quality of taxis being high!!

The taxi industry is really on average of a very poor quality. Training of taxi drivers is almost non existent here, most aren't very professional IME and most taxis are basically old bangers.

Folks should go and take a trip to New York or San Fran and order an Uber there.

Mostly you'll get big, comfortable, modern black sedans or SUVs that are very well maintained and cleaned and the drivers are very professional, usually offer you free water/tissues/phone charger cable, choice of radio station, etc.

The whole experience is VASTLY superior then almost any taxi I've ever taken here in Ireland.

I find the taxi industry here in Ireland to be overall very unprofessional. Ironically given peoples complaints about Uber being gig economy, I feel Taxi's in Ireland feel more like a gig economy that a professional service. Taxi services here feel like they are little more then some lad who has decided to take his old beaten up family car out and work as a taxi driver.

The average standard of taxi service here is really one of the worst I've experienced anywhere. It is WAY behind say the likes of Amsterdam or Germany with their Tesla's and Mercedes and even way behind the likes of UBER in big US cities.

Markcheese

I don't think the public service licence costs are a bar to entry or service,
I've seen great taxis in Ireland, and I've been in some right bangers.. And I've been in similar ubers in the UK... (they were all licensed hackney's just using uber as a booking agent).

Markcheese wrote: »

I don't think the public service licence costs are a bar to entry or service,

Of course it's a barrier to entry. If you want to switch on the app when driving between two points, you're hardly going to go out and buy a special car in order to do it.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Of course it's a barrier to entry. If you want to switch on the app when driving between two points, you're hardly going to go out and buy a special car in order to do it.

What special car are Irish taxi drivers buying?!!

It feels like almost any old clapped out family car will do for Irish taxis.

I'd say something if it was like London or New York where they had to have a very specific vehicle (full EV of course nowadays). But lets be honest, really taxis in Ireland are pretty much not much more then a lad with a car.

bk wrote: »

What special car are Irish taxi drivers buying?!!

It feels like almost any old clapped out family car will do for Irish taxis.

You can't ride share in Ireland without a taxi license and you won't get a taxi license unless you have a wheelchair accessible car. That narrows down the scope of ride sharing. The guy that wants to simply switch on the app when he just happens to be driving across town can't - and he's not going out to buy a specific type of car just for this.

That kills ride sharing stone dead (and of course, that's what the regulation was designed to do).

bk wrote:

It feels like almost any old clapped out family car will do for Irish taxis.

Well, yer existing taxi-man (the fella of the notorious high standards infamy) can drive whatever he likes as he already has a taxi license.

Stephen15

bk wrote: »

What special car are Irish taxi drivers buying?!!

It feels like almost any old clapped out family car will do for Irish taxis.

I'd say something if it was like London or New York where they had to have a very specific vehicle (full EV of course nowadays). But lets be honest, really taxis in Ireland are pretty much not much more then a lad with a car.

All taxis must be 10 years or younger and most would no older than 5 years so it's hardly any old clapped out. An Avensis, Octavia, Prius or minivan may not be as lurious as a Merc but they do are relatively fine and they do the job of getting one from a to b and most taxi men find drive them due their fuel efficiency and reliability.

I have been in taxis on the continent and most were on a par and some even worse than Ireland for example bad driving but I think that's standard in some countries, use of the mobile phone whilst driving, no seatbelts in back seat and failure to comply with fixed rates some cities have a fixed rate for the Airport to City Centre which is a good idea if complied with by drivers.

It would be good though if taxis had to all the same colour/livery like in many places on the continent making them easily recogniable especially for people who may be visually impaired similar to buses.

Markcheese

There are plenty of relativly old taxis on the road,

Getting a Hackney licence, and the car approved is not particularly onerous, even if its only to do it for a day or 2 a week.,
But getting insurance cover as a cab for occasional use... Ouch, any time uber want to fix that, (take out a group policy, cover the car only when it's available for hire, and hired, sure they could just take it out of their cut... ðŸ˜€
How many uber cars and drivers out there in the UK and States are just "seeing if anyone wants to share the car on their way home"?
As I said in Bristol it's Hackney drivers, in Madrid it was black executive cars with a special blue reg.. (skoda superb mainly)
I reckon uber is just a way for an app to get below minimum wage drivers to further an Internet companies ambitions... And no matter how lofty their blurb is, have a look behind it..