makeorbrake wrote: » Doesn't make it any less of an appeasement when it seems that no other jurisdiction is imposing the very same barrier to entry (i.e. no access unless you have a WAT).
Spook_ie wrote: » Again driver training is a progressive on going thing, you only need to read and try a test exam for the current applications for an SPSV drivers license to see the improvements required to get into the industry, but I forget, to you they are just barriers.
Spook_ie wrote: » As to discussing a topic, you're not you are asserting that things like WAT's only are designed as a foil to prevent ride sharing where as even when shown the recorded proof of Dail discussions preceding the advent of the idea of Uber's ride sharing platform, you ignore them.
Spook_ie wrote: » You don't have to have a WAT, but you would have to have a vehicle suitable for classification as a limousine or a rental vehicle, which incidentally would allow you to take fares from the current Uber app. under the current Irish regulations.
makeorbrake wrote: » My understanding.........
Deleted User wrote: » Therein lies your problem
makeorbrake wrote: » Therein lies your contribution to the discussion. You dislike my point of view and the only way you can try and undermine it is with this suggestion. I had the audacity to ask a question - on a discussion forum no less. Meanwhile, you act like you know all the answers yet not a word out of you to clarify where you infer there's a misunderstanding. Says it all really.
Deleted User wrote: » Don't dislike your pov, it's simply incorrect. It's been clarified to you with verifiable evidence which you choose to ignore.
Deleted User wrote: » You have an opinion, that's fine, cool for you, but when you have a multitude of people telling you that you misunderstand, are incorrect or just plain wrong and offer you verifiable facts, you continue with the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and singing lalalalalala.
makeorbrake wrote: » That's your opinion and not fact. What 'verifiable evidence'?? That's funny. So whilst you think I should be wearing a tin foil hat in saying this, many of the contributors on this thread are taxi drivers. We know that as they've said so. So just because I'm outnumbered doesn't make my point of view any less valid (simply on the basis of being outnumbered). Turkeys dont vote for christmas.
Deleted User wrote: » Let me know how you get on ordering Uber cabs in Ireland. I'll follow your progress with interest
end of the road wrote: » the fact your point of view has been demonstrated to be factually incorrect makes it invalid however.
Spook_ie wrote: » Just for reference
makeorbrake wrote: » Eh, no - you have not proven anything to the contrary. These are your opinion(s). Your point?
end of the road wrote: » Plenty of posters have proved your statements incorrect. and no they aren't all taxi drivers nor do they have vested interests.
makeorbrake wrote: » What's that supposed to mean? Uber is dead in Ireland because it's been regulated out of existence.
makeorbrake wrote: » However, you will be delighted to know that for months now I have not used Uber. What may not appeal to you is that I use a rival service every day of the week (but that's not in Ireland what with its professionally trained taxi-men and impeccable wheelchair accessible cars).
makeorbrake wrote: » Ah, I see. I don't agree with you on a topic and all of a sudden I'm not discussing the topic. Otherwise, that some quango or committee muttered something with regard to WAT's way back when doesn't mean to say that it's not being used as a blocking mechanism for uber/ride sharing today.
makeorbrake wrote: » What other country has imposed precisely this measure?
makeorbrake wrote: » Please go back and read the section of text you wrote this in response to. Uber/Lyft innovated with that - you lot more recently responded to it. They were the ones that innovated (despite some of you here having suggested that there is and has been no innovation).
makeorbrake wrote: » Ok, is this thread for communists only? Or I guess selective communists given the self employed nature of the taxi gig. Have you ever worked a second job? I've done so many times. I would wager that most have. Have you ever worked overtime in a job? According to your logic, you would ban anyone working a minute over 40 hours/week. I didn't know that your involvement in this discussion was for benefit of those poor unfortunate uber drivers.... Maybe its someone who goes to college who wants to work a few hours. They don't have a first job to begin with. Maybe its someone that wants to get some money together for a deposit on a house, etc? Maybe it's someone who just happens to be going the same direction - and want's to switch on the app so that they can receive a few quid so they don't even need to work extra hours in their first job?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Uber is dead in Ireland because it doesn't meet the standard of regulation for drivers and cars.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » find it funny how your solution to problems with drivers and cars is LESS regulation?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Your own personal ignorance of this matter is not an excuse.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Lack of WAVs has been a huge issue in Ireland for years. Many people with disabilities are left stranded when calling for taxies. They can't book in advance for an airport trip or a job interview and have any confidence that they will get a WAV.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » You've noticed how all black taxis in the UK are wheelchair accessible, right?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Uber and Hailo both launched in 2011, in different continents. Uber did not innovate with app ordering.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » The Irish regulator has done their job, by maintaining standards, and improving the quality of the fleet over time.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » As for the 'you lot' - I'm not a taxi driver. I've never been a taxi driver. This might wreck your head a bit, but it's possible that people who don't have a vested interest in the sector disagree with you.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » No, I wouldn't ban second jobs at all. Neither would I create the American dream where people HAVE to have a second job to basically survive.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Your own personal ignorance of this matter is not an excuse. Lack of WAVs has been a huge issue in Ireland for years. Many people with disabilities are left stranded when calling for taxies. They can't book in advance for an airport trip or a job interview and have any confidence that they will get a WAV. So the Regulator brought in this measure some years back to increase the number of WAVs in the fleet. It's working - slowly, but working. And your proposal would wipe out this progress in an instant.
makeorbrake wrote: » Eh, once again, no you or they have not. We have differences of opinion but that's as far as it goes. As regards vested interests, we have drivers here and drivers participating so yes, people with coloured views.
makeorbrake wrote: » Calling me 'ignorant' is a reflection on yourself. I don't have to apologise to anyone for having the audacity to ask a question on a discussion forum. I'm not unsympathetic to the needs of the disabled. However, there is no doubt in my mind that there are some using the issue to prop up their own interests. There are all manner of ways that W.A. transportation can be incentivised without stifling innovation.
makeorbrake wrote: » Right. So are you saying the only way to get a taxi license in the UK (without shelling out thousands) is to agree to drive a WAV?
makeorbrake wrote: » We can get into semantics as much as you want. Go out and ask people who they believe pushed forth ride sharing via application. You can dispute what you want - measures by taxi's worldwide were a reaction by and large. I'm talking on a worldwide scale.
makeorbrake wrote: » The irish regulator has appeased taxi drivers and stifled innovation. As regards 'maintaining standards', you've already read the feedback from uber users to the effect that they find uber to be of a higher standard than the taxi (experienced in different markets).
makeorbrake wrote: » The irish regulator has appeased taxi drivers and stifled innovation. As regards 'maintaining standards', you've already read the feedback from uber users to the effect that they find uber to be of a higher standard than the taxi (experienced in different markets). Neither here nor there. There are fella's driving taxi's who are actively participating in this discussion. No problem at all in that - quite the opposite. However, everyone arrives with their own bias. Do I believe everyone of the naysayers here is a taxi driver - no, I don't - nor have I ever suggested that. Well, maybe you're getting a tad ahead of yourself in your assumptions. It's entirely a different discussion.
usernamegoes wrote: » Would you support the regulator bringing in a regulation that requires all taxis are WAV by their next renewal date or within one year? Do you think that fewer taxi overall would be better for those who need WAVs or worse. Would all the WAVs be taken by users who don't need them because there are many fewer cars overall thereby making it harder for wheelchair users to get a cab at all!
Spook_ie wrote: » No because I couldn't afford to take the hit and like many others would be forced into renting a WAT, people like makeorbake are already foaming at the mouth because of reports that people have to wait for a taxi at busy times and want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's a slow progress but it is progress all the same. Fixing the WAT problem should have been tackled back in 2000 by making all new applications WAT only, now you have 15-20000 babies in the bath. The only equitable way to deal with that IMO is to remove the VRT on WATs but make it payable on removal from the fleet the same way as if you were importing it. You could even give it a TX area plate to prevent abuse and give people 5-10 years warning, like we were warned about age and size rules being brought in
usernamegoes wrote: » But you could still do drive a taxi provided you followed the regulation. Is that not your point?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I didn't call you ignorant. I referred to your ignorance on this topic, which is obvious. And you didn't 'ask a question' - you waded in with definitive statements that showed your obvious ignorance of the matter and the recent history in Ireland.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » People with disabilities don't want your sympathy. They want to be able to get to work, get to the airport, get home from the pub without undue hassle, just like everyone else.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » I don't know, and I'm not going to do your research for you. I'm pointing out the difference in the current situation in Ireland and the UK, where there are large numbers of wheelchair accessible taxis in major cities.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » 'Go out and ask people what they believe'? Are you serious? Is the world of fake news where opinions trump facts?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » The facts are that Hailo and Uber launched at the same time, within a few months. Uber did not innovate with app ordering. [/url]
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Have you read the feedback from people with disabilities about how Uber's services are not accessible?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Uber did not innovate with app ordering.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » They innovated with bypassing regulation, just like AirBNB and lots of other 'great' tech solutions.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Have you read about Uber's ludicrous legal strategy of claiming not to be a transport provider to avoid having to provide accessible services?
makeorbrake wrote: » <snipped> I've been to their offices here and talked to them about what they are. And what they are is a technology company. Uber is a platform - that enables individuals to go out and ride share. Of course they're not a traditional transport provider - with the exception of where they have their own autonomous cars on the road in the U.S.
Following a beta launch in May 2010, Uber's services and mobile app officially launched in San Francisco in 2011.[67][68] Originally, the application only allowed users to hail a black luxury car and the price was 1.5 times that of a taxi.[69]
Hailo began in late 2010, after a meeting between three London taxi drivers and three technology entrepreneurs, including co-founders Jay Bregman, CEO,[8][9][11][12][13][14] Ron Zeghibe, Executive Chairman, Caspar Woolley, Chief Operations Officer, and Russell Hall, Gary Jackson, and Terry Runham, Driver Community Leaders. On November 1, 2011 Hailo officially launched to passengers in London.[3][4] By the end of 2012, Hailo had launched in Dublin, Boston, Toronto, and Chicago,[8][13][15] but by late 2014 had discontinued services in North America.[16].
Spook_ie wrote: » Time for you to come clean about your interest in this, it would seem from some of your posts you aren't in Ireland yet you go to the Uber offices somewhere in the world to ask them, smells big time to me.
Spook_ie wrote: » Anyways matters not what Uber say they are, the EU say they are a transport company and that's the fact.https://www.politico.eu/article/uber-ecj-ruling/
Spook_ie wrote: » Chicken or Egg, does it matter who was first, both started officially in 2011 according to Wiki
makeorbrake wrote: » <snipped> There were 4 technology companies that had apps launched before Hailo. Notwithstanding that, Hailo was just another application from just another technology company. The taxi industry didn't bring that about either. <snipped>
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/62877c35768f143f69acd7bb6cd43f3c.svg)
