Spook_ie wrote: » I would suspect the EU might not agree that the ECJ is deeply political, if it were then maybe the UK have the right idea with Brexit, however, the judgement reads
makeorbrake wrote: » 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.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » This is just hilarious now. Is Guinness a tech company? And Avonmore? And Johnson and Johnson? And Asos? And Zara? They all run apps, so are they all tech companies and food / fashion /pharma companies now?
Nermal wrote: » We all have skin in the game as customers. We should be entitled to choose between ride-sharing apps and NTA-regulated taxis. If you're confident the NTA model is better, you shouldn't fear that.
makeorbrake wrote: » Now who's being ridiculous. Straight back at you with your foolishness... Are these companies sub-contractors then?:rolleyes:
AndrewJRenko wrote: » This isn't like buying widgets. Taxi drivers are on the roads, often for many hours a day. This is a major safety issue for customers AND for the other people who share the roads with them. They also deal with the public at vulnerable times, often when they are alone or drunk. These are some of the reasons why we shouldn't be comprising existing standards.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » You said 'if they run an app, they are tech companies', didn't you?
Spook_ie wrote: » No I'm not rolling back on that both started at aprox the same time, now assuming you think that Uber was one of the 4 , name the others
Spook_ie wrote: » Still waiting...
makeorbrake wrote: » You're already on record as stating it makes no difference - so i'm not playing yer games. Secondly, you might want to stop and think about why that avenue was even explored - the constant suggestion that the addition of an app in this context was not innovative. Well Hailo /Uber /Lyft, etc - all technology companies doing what technology companies do - innovate. Proven beyond doubt. The taxi industry itself didn't drive this tech.
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.
Spook_ie wrote: » 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.
Spook_ie wrote: » Chicken and egg, did the app drive the taxi industry or did the taxi industry drive the app.
Spook_ie wrote: » Stop fudging and either name 4 companies or admit you plucked a figure out of yer ass
Spook_ie wrote: » Hmmm, don't think they'll agree with you.
makeorbrake wrote: » <snipped> I'm not admitting anything and you're becoming obsessed about something you yourself have said is neither here nor there. Think of how petty you're being. Think of what pursuing that DOESN'T add to the discussion.
makeorbrake wrote: » Ridiculous. Did the apps build themselves? FFS. I guess if taxi drivers could build apps by talking shíte then maybe that's how it worked. Were the lads behind uber taxi drivers originally?
makeorbrake wrote: » Secondly, you might want to stop and think about why that avenue was even explored - the constant suggestion that the addition of an app in this context was not innovative. Well Hailo /Uber /Lyft, etc - all technology companies doing what technology companies do - innovate. Proven beyond doubt. The taxi industry itself didn't drive this tech.
usernamegoes wrote: » But, you could still do your job if you complied with the regulation. Same as anyone else who would like to become a taxi driver but doesn't have a WAV could become one if they complied with the regulation. This was the logic used earlier in this thread. Seems unfair regulation works when its unfair in your favour. :rolleyes:
Spook_ie wrote: » Your avoidance of answering a question that was raised by a statement from you raises plenty of questions about your truthfulness, honesty and genuine desire for discussion. If you can't name 4 companies as stated in your previous assertion, then just admit it. It won't add or detract from the high esteem in which your contributions are already being held.
Spook_ie wrote: » Think you'll find it was more to do with yet another of your blanket claims
Spook_ie wrote: » I'm getting fed up of doing all the research for you and you still can't name 4 companies.
Spook_ie wrote: » Lost me somewhere in that! I'll work with whatever regulations I'm required to, just as I'd expect anyone coming into the industry to.
makeorbrake wrote: » Listen to yourself. You question my honesty and truthfullness and my genuine desire for discussion? Good grief! You stated quite clearly that it doesn't matter - yet you demand an answer to your question - even though it doesn't matter. HOW is this in the best interests of a genuine discussion on the topic. As I stated before, you are being petty minded. As regards what 'esteem' a few taxi drivers on here (and others in the naysayers camp) hold me in, I think I can live with that. There have been plenty here that have expressed a similar opinion. Ironically (given that you question my motives in posting here), they're not in any way as motivated in terms of chiming in here as the naysayers. #selfinterest
makeorbrake wrote: » Trying to defend the indefensible. Uber is a technology company - and at its core, an app developer with a platform offered by way of that application. Research? A jabus, Go and have a lie down for yerself then - or you'll tire yerself out. ...cos that's all thats going to happen. You can try and dress stuff up as 'blanket' this or that - they're my views.
makeorbrake wrote: » That's grand but ride sharing is not taxi-ing. Taxi regulations exist for taxis. Ride sharing regulations are needed for ride sharing. I mean, they're not the same thing although without a shadow of a doubt, it will eat your lunch. Yet whilst it tucks into yer ham n cheese, they're still not the same thing.
end of the road wrote: » he did not state that the names of the 4 companies as requested don't matter, they do. he wants the names as do i.
end of the road wrote: » judges in the ECJ who know the law, and who heard all possible evidence from all interested parties, say uber is a transport company, therefore it is a transport company. that's it. done, finito. as i said if you have a problem with that then get the money together and challenge the ruling.
end of the road wrote: » ride sharing is still the operation of a public service vehicle however. the regulations that exist do so for public service vehicles. if you are taking a random passenger from a to b and charging a fare, you are operating a public transport service and your vehicle is a public service vehicle.
makeorbrake wrote: » Has someone been taken hostage? as I see we have a list of demands getting touted around? Again, one more guy engaging in pettiness and semantics. Go back and re-read. He said the consideration as a whole didn't matter and I agreed with him. If you're being any way genuine about this aspect of the discussion (which you're not right now), you'll acknowledge that the discussion centered on whether the addition of an app to ridesharing and taxi-ing was innovative. That's all that's to it. Leave the pettiness and semantics aside. And yet, judges are just people. Those aren't the findings in other jurisdictions. To my point, it's political. You don't agree - that's fine. Park it up - or come back and say the same and Ill come back and refute it. ..whichever. It may do - but no matter. They are not the same thing and ride sharing deserves its own regulation.
end of the road wrote: » ride sharing does not deserve or need it's own regulation. the regulations for public service vehicles deal with it perfectly. ride sharing is still the operation and use of a public service vehicle for the carriage of passengers for money.
makeorbrake wrote: » Listen to yourself. You question my honesty and truthfullness and my genuine desire for discussion? Good grief!You stated quite clearly that it doesn't matter - yet you demand an answer to your question - even though it doesn't matter. HOW is this in the best interests of a genuine discussion on the topic. As I stated before, you are being petty minded. As regards what 'esteem' a few taxi drivers on here (and others in the naysayers camp) hold me in, I think I can live with that. There have been plenty here that have expressed a similar opinion. Ironically (given that you question my motives in posting here), they're not in any way as motivated in terms of chiming in here as the naysayers. #selfinterest Trying to defend the indefensible. Uber is a technology company - and at its core, an app developer with a platform offered by way of that application. Research? A jabus, Go and have a lie down for yerself then - or you'll tire yerself out. ...cos that's all thats going to happen. You can try and dress stuff up as 'blanket' this or that - they're my views. That's grand but ride sharing is not taxi-ing. Taxi regulations exist for taxis. Ride sharing regulations are needed for ride sharing. I mean, they're not the same thing although without a shadow of a doubt, it will eat your lunch. Yet whilst it tucks into yer ham n cheese, they're still not the same thing.
Spook_ie wrote: » You're nothing more than a snake oil salesman, full of promises but short on anything else.
makeorbrake wrote: » Well that was a useful contribution to the discussion. Very enlightening.:(
Spook_ie wrote: » And very truthful.
Spook_ie wrote: » Lost me somewhere in that! I'll work with whatever regulations I'm required to, just as I'd expect anyone coming into the industry to. As it stands at the moment new entrants who want a taxi license are restricted to WATs or WAH's. The NTA may change that when they get to their proposed 10%, however, if the NTA decided that at some stage in the future that I had to have a WAT or WAH, then I would comply. I would object strenuously if this were something expected of me to comply with within a year as the costs already incurred in replacing my last vehicle haven't as yet been recouped and nothing as yet to finance the next vehicle, so I'm really not sure what you're trying to point out!
usernamegoes wrote: » Yeah, you'd object if you had to comply but don't mind if others do because it helps you minimize competition and pretend you actually care about wheelchair users as long as it's other paying for it.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » This isn't like buying widgets.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
