Uber

makeorbrake wrote: »

Eh, Sherlock, there's no mystery here. I was the one that said that I've been to their offices and I've repeatedly stated that I'm living overseas. They have offices/customer service centres in other jurisdictions where anyone can walk in off the street and talk to them.

That may well have been the ruling by the ECJ in Europe but it stands to reason you run an app, you're a technology company. But of course, this is highly political. Not just in the irish context but worldwide.

So that's that then, the ECJ ruling puts this to rest, for Uber, EU govts, consumers and Taxi associations..... just not for makeorbrake and his assorted conspiracy theory's

I can live with that

Spook_ie wrote: »

If that's what you say, that's what you say but you must agree that it certainly comes over as peculiar the amount of interest in getting ride sharing accepted in Ireland that you exhibit as a not concerned about it ex pat?

Right - but how else would this play out? I mean I know Uber are in monopoly money territory with their bonkers IPO but you think they put me on the payroll? lol

Spook_ie wrote: »

As to agreeing with me, it's not me that you spouted on about 4 companies starting up before Hailo, so name them or is that just a figure pulled from mid air and like most of your arguments on here, disparaging at the least to other posters views

You said this => "Chicken or Egg, does it matter who was first, both started officially in 2011 according to Wiki"

Or are you now rolling back on that?
I'm not of a mind to go off on a tangent for the sake of it. This all started with the notion that the app side of things is not an innovation when it was and it is....and it didn't come from within the taxi industry.

end of the road

makeorbrake wrote: »

Eh, Sherlock, there's no mystery here. I was the one that said that I've been to their offices and I've repeatedly stated that I'm living overseas. They have offices/customer service centres in other jurisdictions where anyone can walk in off the street and talk to them.

That may well have been the ruling by the ECJ in Europe but it stands to reason you run an app, you're a technology company. But of course, this is highly political. Not just in the irish context but worldwide.

it's not political at all. they fit the definitions of a transport company hence the ECJ ruled them correctly as such. they are a transport company which uses an ap but which does not directly operate the cars.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Again, Sherlock, there's no mystery here. I'm Irish but I live overseas. I accompanied a local to their offices as he was interested in driving via the platform.

As regards frequenting other forums, not particularly Sherlock. I use boards from time to time, came across this uber thread and posted. Whilst there's a good chance I'm not going to relocate back to Ireland, I'd still hope that it can rise above protectionist shíte like this. I'd like family and friends back home to be able to benefit from it.

Am I free to leave now or do you want to press charges, chief?

You've already said it doesn't matter - and I agree with you. Hailo is just another technology company. They all came up around the same time and that is innovation. That's not innovation from within the Taxi Industry. It's innovation brought both TO the taxi industry and as a complete enablement of ride sharing.

If that's what you say, that's what you say but you must agree that it certainly comes over as peculiar the amount of interest in getting ride sharing accepted in Ireland that you exhibit as a not concerned about it ex pat?

As to agreeing with me, it's not me that you spouted on about 4 companies starting up before Hailo, so name them or is that just a figure pulled from mid air and like most of your arguments on here, disparaging at the least to other posters views

Spook_ie wrote: »

So you're living overseas and decide that you need to get ride sharing introduced into Ireland, come on, you can tell us the real reasons for your interest in it. After all we're upfront enough to say if we have skin or not in the game.

Also more to the point are you frequenting any forums in France, Germany,etc. to encourage there ride sharing acceptance or is just here?

Again, Sherlock, there's no mystery here. I'm Irish but I live overseas. I accompanied a local to their offices as he was interested in driving via the platform.

As regards frequenting other forums, not particularly Sherlock. I use boards from time to time, came across this uber thread and posted. Whilst there's a good chance I'm not going to relocate back to Ireland, I'd still hope that it can rise above protectionist shíte like this. I'd like family and friends back home to be able to benefit from it.

Am I free to leave now or do you want to press charges, chief?

Spook_ie wrote: »

makeyourmindup it is then, name the four companies I'll do the research as to when they started then.

You've already said it doesn't matter - and I agree with you. Hailo is just another technology company. They all came up around the same time and that is innovation. That's not innovation from within the Taxi Industry. It's innovation brought both TO the taxi industry and as a complete enablement of ride sharing.

makeorbrake wrote: »

I'm talking about the actual use of the app itself. Given the shíte I've been dealing with here, why don't I use the same lines...

i.e. "Don't be so lazy"
"Go do your own research"

makeyourmindup it is then, name the four companies I'll do the research as to when they started then.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Eh, Sherlock, there's no mystery here. I was the one that said that I've been to their offices and I've repeatedly stated that I'm living overseas. They have offices/customer service centres in other jurisdictions where anyone can walk in off the street and talk to them.

That may well have been the ruling by the ECJ in Europe but it stands to reason you run an app, you're a technology company. But of course, this is highly political. Not just in the irish context but worldwide.

So you're living overseas and decide that you need to get ride sharing introduced into Ireland, come on, you can tell us the real reasons for your interest in it. After all we're upfront enough to say if we have skin or not in the game.

Also more to the point are you frequenting any forums in France, Germany,etc. to encourage there ride sharing acceptance or is just here?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Name them with supporting information or we're going to need to change your username to Makeyourmindup

I'm talking about the actual use of the app itself. Given the shíte I've been dealing with here, why don't I use the same lines...

i.e. "Don't be so lazy"
"Go do your own research"

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>

Name them with supporting information or we're going to need to change your username to Makeyourmindup

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: »

Chicken or Egg, does it matter who was first, both started officially in 2011 according to Wiki

Actually, I would make the point that it doesn't matter one iota. The bottom line is that the innovation came from the tech sector via tech companies. It didn't come from the taxi industry.

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.

Eh, Sherlock, there's no mystery here. I was the one that said that I've been to their offices and I've repeatedly stated that I'm living overseas. They have offices/customer service centres in other jurisdictions where anyone can walk in off the street and talk to them.

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/

That may well have been the ruling by the ECJ in Europe but it stands to reason you run an app, you're a technology company. But of course, this is highly political. Not just in the irish context but worldwide.

Chicken or Egg, does it matter who was first, both started officially in 2011 according to Wiki

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].

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.

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.

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/

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.

The arrogance. I asked a simple question which is the complete opposite of making definitive statements. Right back at ye : Yer taxi driving buddies are renowned at being experts at everything - I guess that's where you picked that up, right? :rolleyes:

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.

GTF out of here with your faux concern and pathetic attempt to take the moral high-ground!

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.

YOU DONT KNOW? - and you call me ignorant? GTF. Secondly, in case it escaped your attention, this is a discussion forum. I don't have any obligation to do 'research'. And once again, stop hiding behind the disability issue.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

'Go out and ask people what they believe'? Are you serious? Is the world of fake news where opinions trump facts?

Says it all that you would invoke a trumpism here!

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]

And you follow up by talking about FACTS when your facts are lies? Give me a break.

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.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you read the feedback from people with disabilities about how Uber's services are not accessible?

Stop trying to hide behind the disability issue. Is every taxi in Ireland wheelchair accessible? Then your point is null and void.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Uber did not innovate with app ordering.

Of course they have innovated by enabling technology to in turn enable ordinary people to use their existing vehicles for ride sharing purposes.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

They innovated with bypassing regulation, just like AirBNB and lots of other 'great' tech solutions.

Wrong (and you can keep on with this and I'll keep correcting you...as you want). There is no regulation for ride sharing in ireland. Ride sharing is not taxi-ing. It's quite common for a new technological approach to emerge and no regulation existing to govern it to begin with.

And next you go after AirBNB? Dude, you have no credibility.

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?

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.

usernamegoes wrote: »

But you could still do drive a taxi provided you followed the regulation. Is that not your point?

Yes I could and if WATs for all was decided on then I'd comply with that regulation BUT not overnight or within a year, given 5 years notice and then on end of life of whichever vehicle I were driving maybe. As it stands at the moment if it were brought in overnight I'd still owe 9k on this car before even starting to put by any money to help fund it's replacement.

usernamegoes

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

But you could still do drive a taxi provided you followed the regulation. Is that not your point?

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!

It's an unworkable suggestion, and probably beyond the legal powers of the regulator. We need more WAVS on the street, and the current system is making this happen.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

Maybe you'd like to put your solutions to this issue that has challenged the taxi sector worldwide on the table so we can see how they might work?

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?

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.

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.

'Go out and ask people what they believe'? Are you serious? Is the world of fake news where opinions trump facts? The facts are that Hailo and Uber launched at the same time, within a few months. Uber did not innovate with app ordering. They innovated with bypassing regulation, just like AirBNB and lots of other 'great' tech solutions.

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).

Have you read the feedback from people with disabilities about how Uber's services are not accessible? Have you read about Uber's ludicrous legal strategy of claiming not to be a transport provider to avoid having to provide accessible services?
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Woman-in-Wheelchair-Denied-An-Uber-Ride-a-Bigger-Problem-Advocate-Says-486502331.html

https://www.thedailybeast.com/uber-disability-laws-dont-apply-to-us

http://fortune.com/2015/05/22/uber-lyft-disabled/

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.

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.

And people who don't live here, we still allow your input weird as that is.

usernamegoes

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.

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!

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Uber is dead in Ireland because it doesn't meet the standard of regulation for drivers and cars.

Uber is dead in Ireland as it's being blocked by a regulator that's appeasing the taxi lobby.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

find it funny how your solution to problems with drivers and cars is LESS regulation?

I believe in regulation that doesn't stifle innovation.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Your own personal ignorance of this matter is not an excuse.

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.

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.

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.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You've noticed how all black taxis in the UK are wheelchair accessible, right?

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?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Uber and Hailo both launched in 2011, in different continents. Uber did not innovate with app ordering.

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.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The Irish regulator has done their job, by maintaining standards, and improving the quality of the fleet over time.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Well, maybe you're getting a tad ahead of yourself in your assumptions. It's entirely a different discussion.

makeorbrake wrote: »

What's that supposed to mean? Uber is dead in Ireland because it's been regulated out of existence.

Uber is dead in Ireland because it doesn't meet the standard of regulation for drivers and cars.

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).

I find it funny how your solution to problems with drivers and cars is LESS regulation?

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.

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: »

What other country has imposed precisely this measure?

You've noticed how all black taxis in the UK are wheelchair accessible, right?

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).

Uber and Hailo both launched in 2011, in different continents. Uber did not innovate with app ordering. The only innovation is bypassing regulations. The Irish regulator has done their job, by maintaining standards, and improving the quality of the fleet over time.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

end of the road

makeorbrake wrote: »

Eh, no - you have not proven anything to the contrary. These are your opinion(s).

Your point?

Plenty of posters have proved your statements incorrect. and no they aren't all taxi drivers nor do they have vested interests.

Deleted User wrote: »

Let me know how you get on ordering Uber cabs in Ireland. I'll follow your progress with interest

What's that supposed to mean? Uber is dead in Ireland because it's been regulated out of existence.

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).

end of the road wrote: »

the fact your point of view has been demonstrated to be factually incorrect makes it invalid however.

Eh, no - you have not proven anything to the contrary. These are your opinion(s).

Spook_ie wrote: »

Just for reference

Your point?

Deleted User wrote: »

Let me know how you get on ordering Uber cabs in Ireland. I'll follow your progress with interest

Uber is available in Ireland, won't go into the details of when their Irish manager called MyTaxi because he couldn't get an Uber one Christmas.

Interesting point about Uber in other countries having partnered to provide a vehicle, just wondering now how many of these classy Uber rides people get are actually a Hertz rental with a driver?

https://www.uber.com/us/en/o/drive/vehicle-solutions/