Uber

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.

Why not, I have to.

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.

Well it has to pass the minimum standards as set by the NTA, age,size and SGS tested, unlike Anto and his mates in their 2001 Clios and Glanzas with a bean can exhaust delivering Pizzas.

makeorbrake wrote: »

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.

Not so and you know it.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why not, I have to.

You are saying you have to as you're a taxi driver?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not so and you know it.

You can right now (within reason - obviously it has to pass a test and it has to meet minimum age requirements) - as you already have a taxi license (and YOU know it).

makeorbrake wrote: »

You are saying you have to as you're a taxi driver?

I have to, to comply with the regulations.

Spook_ie wrote: »

I have to, to comply with the regulations.

Right. Ride sharing is not taxi-ing. It deserves its own regulation. How else are we going to enable actual 'ride-sharing' (as per its very definition).?

makeorbrake wrote: »

You can right now (within reason - obviously it has to pass a test and it has to meet minimum age requirements) - as you already have a taxi license (and YOU know it).

It has to be on an approved model list.
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Model_Report_Database_01-02-18_PDF.pdf
those on the list have been assessed as meeting the size requirement, if the car isn't listed then as long as it meets the guidelines
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Initial_Suitability_Inspection_Manual_Web_Version_26-02-2018_PDF.pdf

I take it you like Glanzas and Clios?

makeorbrake wrote: »

Right. Ride sharing is not taxi-ing. It deserves its own regulation. How else are we going to enable actual 'ride-sharing' (as per its very definition).?

Ride sharing would be within the remit of the NTA, as long as the vehicles fit their regulations then why not, just don't expect Anto to be allowed to buzz up n down the Main St looking for custom.

Spook_ie wrote: »

I take it you like Glanzas and Clios?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Ride sharing would be within the remit of the NTA, as long as the vehicles fit their regulations then why not, just don't expect Anto to be allowed to buzz up n down the Main St looking for custom.

So long as you're saying that regulation is equitable and such that it facilitates people in ride sharing, then sure. That means dropping this 'every car must be wheelchair accessible' measure. You can exclude Glanzas/Clio's but implementing the other qualifier takes the vast majority of the driving public out of the equation entirely...ergo ...a complete stifling of ride sharing in Ireland.

Other than that, no I don't like Clios. Because I live in a developing country, they use them here but with the indriver app, I can simply select another car.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_vqckurtIw

Here is the Uber I just used in Brazil

Draw whatever conclusions you want.

I'll post the return journey later.

makeorbrake wrote: »

So long as you're saying that regulation is equitable and such that it facilitates people in ride sharing, then sure. That means dropping this 'every car must be wheelchair accessible' measure. You can exclude Glanzas/Clio's but implementing the other qualifier takes the vast majority of the driving public out of the equation entirely...ergo ...a complete stifling of ride sharing in Ireland.

NTA won't drop the wheelchair idea until such time as they have a significant WA fleet, perhaps Uber should offer to supply a fleet of WAVs that people could rent on an ad-hoc basis out of their multi billion loss making enterprise rather than subsiding fares around the globe. Pretty sure the NTA would listen to them then.

Spook_ie wrote: »

NTA won't drop the wheelchair idea until such time as they have a significant WA fleet, perhaps Uber should offer to supply a fleet of WAVs that people could rent on an ad-hoc basis out of their multi billion loss making enterprise rather than subsiding fares around the globe. Pretty sure the NTA would listen to them then.

Yeah, and that's simply unreasonable. It's clear as night and day that this is a blocking exercise.

Deleted User wrote: »

Here is the Uber I just used in Brazil

Draw whatever conclusions you want.

I'll post the return journey later.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_vqckurtIw

Please post a video of the next taxi that you hop into - just so that people see the comparison within the context of that market.

makeorbrake wrote: »

So long as you're saying that regulation is equitable and such that it facilitates people in ride sharing, then sure. That means dropping this 'every car must be wheelchair accessible' measure. You can exclude Glanzas/Clio's but implementing the other qualifier takes the vast majority of the driving public out of the equation entirely...ergo ...a complete stifling of ride sharing in Ireland.

Other than that, no I don't like Clios. Because I live in a developing country, they use them here but with the indriver app, I can simply select another car.

Not every vehicle being licensed by the NTA is wheelchair accessible but all the taxi's are. There's nothing stopping anyone paying €1000 for a limo license if their car is suitable and insured for public hire, there's not even a maximum, fare order applied to limousines unlike taxis. You can charge what you think you can get away with as long as you tell the passengers up front what the charge is, much like Uber and their surcharging policy.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Yeah, and that's simply unreasonable. It's clear as night and day that this is a blocking exercise.

Time and again throughout this thread it has to be explained to the Uber fanboys that there is literally nothing stopping Uber from operating here so long as they do it within the regulations.

There are the same regulations that apply to all would-be entrants regardless of size of company, how the consumer interacts, or niche gimmicks.

Uber want an unregulated free-for-all that allows them to under cut everyone on the back of investor billions to allow them to become a monopoly at which point they rack up the prices.

Their current business model is doomed to failure unless they have a market with no regulation.

I give them another 12 months before they run out of funds raised during their abysmal IPO offering, after that, they either have to increase to realistic fare prices or go bust, simple as.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Please post a video of the next taxi that you hop into - just so that people see the comparison within the context of that market.

I've taken 3 or 4 taxis since arriving here and they are miles better than any uber I've taken. I'm not in charge of the transport for this trip, but I'll see what I can do in terms of providing a comparison

end of the road

makeorbrake wrote: »

Yeah, and that's simply unreasonable. It's clear as night and day that this is a blocking exercise.

it's not a blocking exercise. no matter how much you want it to be otherwise, no matter how much you claim otherwise, it is not a blocking exercise. ride sharing is not blocked in ireland. low standards when operating a public service vehicle are however, and rightly so. i see no basis as to why people providing ride sharing services should be subject to different regulations given they are still operating a public service vehicle, when engaging in the carriage of passengers for a fare.
the requirement to operate a wheelchair accessable vehicle when operating a public service vehicle is a perfectly reasonable requirement to insure that people in wheelchairs have full access to public transport vehicles and services long term. people in wheelchairs among anyone else with a disability have a perfectly reasonable expectation to be able to get around as easy as their situation and disability allows.
we are not going to go backwards, we are not going back to the old days where any car can operate as a public service vehicle. you will need to understand this and you should put your energies into trying to get ride share providers to operate within irish regulations and compete with existing public service vehicles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uP3DHQ5ss0

The sooner the whole house of cards collapses the better.

Deleted User wrote: »

Time and again throughout this thread it has to be explained to the Uber fanboys that there is literally nothing stopping Uber from operating here so long as they do it within the regulations.

Firstly to your 'uber fanboy' jibe, I'm no more a fanboy of uber than you are. However, I do give them credit for disrupting the market and I am enthusiastic about the concept of ride sharing generally.
It's just difficult to get into that level of discussion here as the majority of naysayers have self interest to look after and so, ride sharing in whatever format is evil (whether facilitated through uber or any other entity).

Time and time again, it has to be pointed out that taxi-ing and ride sharing are not the same thing and need separate regulation. Time and time again, it has to be pointed out that the measure currently enforced by the regulator is quite clearly a blocking mechanism to appease the taxi driver lobby.

Deleted User wrote: »

There are the same regulations that apply to all would-be entrants regardless of size of company, how the consumer interacts, or niche gimmicks.

They are taxi regulations. Ride sharing is not taxi-ing.

Deleted User wrote: »

Uber want an unregulated free-for-all that allows them to under cut everyone on the back of investor billions to allow them to become a monopoly at which point they rack up the prices.

I'm not going to speak for Uber - but would-be uber drivers want to be able to access ride sharing - as do would be uber passengers. Both groups would definitely consider other ride sharing apps - but when you stifle the whole ride sharing deal in ireland, all of that is neither here nor there.

Deleted User wrote: »

I give them another 12 months before they run out of funds raised during their abysmal IPO offering, after that, they either have to increase to realistic fare prices or go bust, simple as.

Right. And they're not the only show in town. If you think that - that's all that's to this - then what is anyone worried about? But it's not all that's to it. Ride-sharing if enabled (as per how it was originally intended) would undercut taxi drivers - regardless of any uber inducements. I'm not in favour of protectionism - it is what it is.

Deleted User wrote: »

I've taken 3 or 4 taxis since arriving here and they are miles better than any uber I've taken. I'm not in charge of the transport for this trip, but I'll see what I can do in terms of providing a comparison

I live in a neighbouring country. Not always but 90% of the time, an indriver , beat or uber car will be superior to a taxi here. Furthermore, the driver can be reviewed and the car can be reviewed by customers and those reviews are available to all other potential customers. There's less chance of anything untoward happening as the driver/car are forever registered via the app. That's not the case with taxi's and taxi-drivers here.

Just dropping that video in here without offering context was plain wrong and constructed to mislead. If you want a western standard car, Uber black is available to you. Furthermore, that uber journey you just took cost a fraction of what it would in Ireland.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not every vehicle being licensed by the NTA is wheelchair accessible but all the taxi's are. There's nothing stopping anyone paying €1000 for a limo license if their car is suitable and insured for public hire

I can't imagine that will in any way enable ride sharing (which would implicate the car stock that the majority of the irish driving public own).

Spook_ie wrote: »

The sooner the whole house of cards collapses the better.

And this discussion will continue regardless as Uber is not the only show in town. Furthermore, they will be restructured and continue. That's all a side issue/discussion.

The bottom line remains - the regulator needs to facilitate ride sharing.

kippy

What exactly are the insurance/legal implications of using or offering lifts in a car insured privately?
Surely you need a specific type of insurance for this?
Surely this is the big issue? No matter what the regulator does.....

end of the road wrote: »

it's not a blocking exercise. no matter how much you want it to be otherwise, no matter how much you claim otherwise, it is not a blocking exercise. ride sharing is not blocked in ireland. low standards when operating a public service vehicle are however, and rightly so. i see no basis as to why people providing ride sharing services should be subject to different regulations given they are still operating a public service vehicle, when engaging in the carriage of passengers for a fare.
you will need to understand this and you should put your energies into trying to get ride share providers to operate within irish regulations and compete with existing public service vehicles.

And no matter how much you want to convince me and others otherwise, no matter how much you claim otherwise, it very much IS a blocking exercise and an appeasement of taxi drivers.

In What other country do they have the same regulation?

makeorbrake wrote: »

Firstly to your 'uber fanboy' jibe, I'm no more a fanboy of uber than you are. However, I do give them credit for disrupting the market and I am enthusiastic about the concept of ride sharing generally.
It's just difficult to get into that level of discussion here as the majority of naysayers have self interest to look after and so, ride sharing in whatever format is evil (whether facilitated through uber or any other entity).

It's a discussion forum. Expect people to have a different view to yours. Alternatively, Conspiracy forum is that way --->

makeorbrake wrote: »

Time and time again, it has to be pointed out that taxi-ing and ride sharing are not the same thing and need separate regulation.

As stated many times in this thread previously, not according to the regulator. Don't like it, go ahead and lobby for a change but Uber have tried and failed to show any reason for their service to be classified differently.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Time and time again, it has to be pointed out that the measure currently enforced by the regulator is quite clearly a blocking mechanism to appease the taxi driver lobby.

Uber can easily defeat these dastardly plans by adhering to the same requirements as everyone else

makeorbrake wrote: »

They are taxi regulations. Ride sharing is not taxi-ing.

So you say, but the regulator says different. If you want to see this change go ahead and lobby.........

makeorbrake wrote: »

Just dropping that video in here without offering context was plain wrong and constructed to mislead. If you want a western standard car, Uber black is available to you.

What context do you want? It was an Uber I just stepped out of.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Furthermore, that uber journey you just took cost a fraction of what it would in Ireland.

Most things here cost a fraction of what it costs in Ireland

end of the road

makeorbrake wrote: »

Firstly to your 'uber fanboy' jibe, I'm no more a fanboy of uber than you are. However, I do give them credit for disrupting the market and I am enthusiastic about the concept of ride sharing generally.
It's just difficult to get into that level of discussion here as the majority of naysayers have self interest to look after and so, ride sharing in whatever format is evil (whether facilitated through uber or any other entity).

nobody has ever said on this thread that ride sharing is evil or even a problem. what has been said is that ride sharing is possible within the current regulations, and that uber don't want to abide by regulations but want no regulation and to become a monopoly. people's issue is with uber itself and not ride sharing.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Time and time again, it has to be pointed out that taxi-ing and ride sharing are not the same thing and need separate regulation. Time and time again, it has to be pointed out that the measure currently enforced by the regulator is quite clearly a blocking mechanism to appease the taxi driver lobby.

time and time again you have been told the regulations do not exist to appease taxi drivers and are not designed to be a blocking mechanism, but are designed to protect the user and insure a viable and userfriendly industry.

makeorbrake wrote: »

They are taxi regulations. Ride sharing is not taxi-ing.

they are public service vehicle operation regulations rather then specific taxi regulations, all though there will be specific regulations that apply to taxis only. ride sharing is still the operating of a public service vehicle for hire however and so therefore are correctly part of the regulations we have in ireland.

makeorbrake wrote: »

I'm not going to speak for Uber - but would-be uber drivers want to be able to access ride sharing - as do would be uber passengers. Both groups would definitely consider other ride sharing apps - but when you stifle the whole ride sharing deal in ireland, all of that is neither here nor there.

people can access ride sharing as explained. they can't access ride sharing in an unregulated free for all however.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Right. And they're not the only show in town. If you think that - that's all that's too this - then what is anyone worried about? But it's not all that's to it. Ride-sharing if enabled (as per how it was originally intended) would undercut taxi drivers - regardless of any uber inducements. I'm not in favour of protectionism - it is what it is.

[/QUOTE]

anyone can offer someone a lift but they cannot charge for it. so technically ride sharing is enabled as intended bar money being able to be exchanged. the regulations are not protectionism as they apply to all vehicles operating as a public service vehicle and to all individuals operating said vehicles.

makeorbrake wrote: »

I live in a neighbouring country. Not always but 90% of the time, an indriver , beat or uber car will be superior to a taxi here. Furthermore, the driver can be reviewed and the car can be reviewed by customers and those reviews are available to all other potential customers. There's less chance of anything untoward happening as the driver/car are forever registered via the app. That's not the case with taxi's and taxi-drivers here.

Just dropping that video in here without offering context was plain wrong and constructed to mislead. If you want a western standard car, Uber black is available to you. Furthermore, that uber journey you just took cost a fraction of what it would in Ireland.

makeorbrake wrote: »

how is it misleading. the context was perfectly given within the video.

makeorbrake wrote: »

I can't imagine that will in any way enable ride sharing (which would implicate the car stock that the majority of the irish driving public own).

the reality is the days of any old car being able to operate as a public service vehicle are more or less at an end in ireland that isn't going to change as there is no basis to change it, especially just because 1 area of operating a public service vehicle calls itself ride sharing.

end of the road

makeorbrake wrote: »

And no matter how much you want to convince me and others otherwise, no matter how much you claim otherwise, it very much IS a blocking exercise and an appeasement of taxi drivers.

What other country do they have the same regulation?

it is not a blocking exercise and appeasement of taxi drivers. the fact we have other public service vehicles operating under the same regulations shows your claim does not stack up.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a discussion forum. Expect people to have a different view to yours. Alternatively, Conspiracy forum is that way --->

Quite open to the fact that its a discussion forum - where have I said otherwise? That doesn't nullify the point I made that the majority of naysayers here are taxi operators - and ride sharing is not in their financial interests. There's no conspiracy there - just plain fact.

Deleted User wrote: »

As stated many times in this thread previously, not according to the regulator. Don't like it, go ahead and lobby for a change but Uber have tried and failed to show any reason for their service to be classified differently.

And as stated many times, I don't agree. Of course the regulator isn't going to admit it's a deliberate blocking exercise. Of course taxi drivers will hide behind the skirt of the regulator on the subject and make the very same claim. How else would you expect them to react?

Deleted User wrote: »

Uber can easily defeat these dastardly plans by adhering to the same requirements as everyone else

Why should they? They're not providing a taxi-ing service. Ride sharing is NOT taxi'ing.

Deleted User wrote: »

So you say, but the regulator says different. If you want to see this change go ahead and lobby.........

I'm calling it out for what it is and expressing an opinion.

Deleted User wrote: »

What context do you want? It was an Uber I just stepped out of.

The context that a taxi is likely to be the same as or worse than an uber which is the reality in Brazil and all of latin america.

Deleted User wrote: »

Most things here cost a fraction of what it costs in Ireland

Yeah, and that's about context. I pay a couple of dollars (on average) per journey. I don't expect to have the same standard as I would in an Uber in San Francisco or any other 1st world/western country.
However, to your point (that most things cost more in Ireland than anywhere else), this travesty right here feeds into exactly that. For that reason the cost of doing business in Ireland is far higher than it needs to be or should be.