Uber

Spook_ie wrote: »

I'm claiming it's what's already on the table, as linked to by previous posts showing it to be government policy to increase the number of WAVs, I would just like to know how you think allowing ride sharing is going to facilitate that, maybe it's been done elsewhere, maybe you have an idea of how to do it. I certainly don't see how the two are compatible but you say you know different, so divulge.

I'm saying that both can and should be enabled and that a solution should be provided to facilitate both. You can keep pressing me to present you with a plan for your perusal - but that won't be happening here. I'm not going down that rabbit hole. You can claim that there is no other way - and my answer to that is that far more complex issues have been solved and are solved around the world every day of the week. It wouldn't be credible to claim that stunting the development of ride sharing is the only way to enable sufficient WA transportation.

shnaek

Spook_ie wrote: »

Unfortunately if Uber were here on their terms then on those nights you would likely have paid 4 or 5 times the norm, maybe more depending on what surge pricing they invoked and still no guarantee that you'd have got a ride, the one thing I would almost guarantee, is that if you'd walked to a cab office, rang a cab office, used one of the cab office apps, taxi rank or used MyTaxi you'd have gotten a cab eventually, and maybe surprisingly quicker than you'd think.

I tried MyTaxi multiple times. Kept telling me there was no taxis available - completely useless app when you need it most. I will walk to a cab office the next time this happens and I will post the results here - still means I would have gotten soaked though walking to one of the few offices in town - with Uber they'd have picked me up where I was.

It may well be true about Uber, but it hasn't been my experience in the UK. I'd still like to see them here so I would have the option of using them at least.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yet again you can't or won't give any other option that facilitates ride-sharing and improving WAV availability, you just keep spouting the same old words in a different order. You don't have to convince me of anything just show that you actually have an idea of how the regulatory authorities can square the circle. To be honest, you are leaving little option but to conclude you haven't a clue how to do it.

Have you considered bolding key words to make them appear true?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you considered bolding key words to make them appear true?

And evidently, that's a criticism fired off at me once more. I don't have any issue with using devices like *bolded text* if I feel it better gets the point across. It seems pretty childish to me to raise such an issue. As regards your twisting => "to make them appear true", it seems immature of those that can't engage in an open discussion without this sort of nonsense.

I'm quite happy to participate in any public discussion on boards.ie according to the rules set out by boards.ie and it's moderators. However, I won't be bullied into responses or by deliberate misrepresentation of the points I make by those who bizarrely think that I am under some obligation to discuss the topic on and according to their terms.

usernamegoes

Spook_ie wrote: »

Unfortunately if Uber were here on their terms then on those nights you would likely have paid 4 or 5 times the norm, maybe more depending on what surge pricing they invoked and still no guarantee that you'd have got a ride, the one thing I would almost guarantee, is that if you'd walked to a cab office, rang a cab office, used one of the cab office apps, taxi rank or used MyTaxi you'd have gotten a cab eventually, and maybe surprisingly quicker than you'd think.

Some people would rather pay more than get stuck in the rain! Some people would rather wait for a taxi. Different strokes...

Presumably, you don't charge more for working at after 20:00 and for Sundays and Holidays and I think that's decent of you. But I don't mind paying more for those trips because it encourages more drivers to be out at those times.

usernamegoes wrote: »

Some people would rather pay more than get stuck in the rain! Some people would rather wait for a taxi. Different strokes...

Be careful what you wish for.

https://gizmodo.com/are-uber-and-lyft-drivers-gaming-surge-pricing-to-prote-1834906999

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Be careful what you wish for.

https://gizmodo.com/are-uber-and-lyft-drivers-gaming-surge-pricing-to-prote-1834906999

Sure, if you give one platform a free rein, then that kind of thing is possible - regardless of industry. Uber doesn't have to be the only show in town. And regulation can be both progressive/pro-innovation and functional.

usernamegoes wrote: »

Some people would rather pay more than get stuck in the rain! Some people would rather wait for a taxi. Different strokes...

Presumably, you don't charge more for working at after 20:00 and for Sundays and Holidays and I think that's decent of you. But I don't mind paying more for those trips because it encourages more drivers to be out at those times.

I don't charge anymore than reads on the meter, that's what it's there for, that's also why there's a maximum fares order, that's why Uber don't like it here, they have to follow regulations.

Spook_ie wrote: »

I don't charge anymore than reads on the meter, that's what it's there for, that's also why there's a maximum fares order, that's why Uber don't like it here, they have to follow regulations.

That's not the reason they're not here. They're not here because it can't function from the get go with current regulation.

I'm not even sure why you would bring this up as any other entity can compete against that approach. Uber do surge pricing. They also get advanced with their algorithm in giving you a different price if your battery is about to go dead and all sorts of other stuff. There's a very easy answer to that. Use another service. I have not used uber since I discovered other ride sharing applications.

usernamegoes

Spook_ie wrote: »

I don't charge anymore than reads on the meter, that's what it's there for, that's also why there's a maximum fares order, that's why Uber don't like it here, they have to follow regulations.

Ah yes. You use the equivalent of surge pricing because it suits you. Here I was thinking you were against it.

usernamegoes wrote: »

Ah yes. You use the equivalent of surge pricing because it suits you. Here I was thinking you were against it.

Wrong again, surge pricing would vary with demand throughout the day plus what ever rate Uber decided was the base rate. The 2 tier rate doesn't change other than with time, no extra for rainy days, concert days, bus strikes etc.

I work to the regulations, that's why a few years ago there were 3 rates, a special rate for Xmas Eve, New Year's etc, it was removed I still work with whatever the meter rate is, if at some stage they removed rate 2 I'd still be working to the regulations, as I said in previous replies to your questioning lines, if they decided that all taxis were to become WATs then I'd work to that regulation or not at all.

So what are you trying to prove or disprove?

Now after interrogation over whether I use a meter, who's going to decide Uber's rates and percentage of WATs if rideshare was introduced here, Uber or the NTA, at the moment it's the NTA but Uber would love to have free rein, and don't deny they wouldn't.

makeorbrake wrote: »

That's not the reason they're not here. They're not here because it can't function from the get go with current regulation.

I'm not even sure why you would bring this up as any other entity can compete against that approach. Uber do surge pricing. They also get advanced with their algorithm in giving you a different price if your battery is about to go dead and all sorts of other stuff. There's a very easy answer to that. Use another service. I have not used uber since I discovered other ride sharing applications.

Uber is here, they work within the regulations, you'd like them to ditch the regulations in favour of something that they'd prefer

I'd like to ditch regulations for something I'd prefer but I know that regulations are there for a reason, therefore I follow the regulations.

Of course I'm assuming that your here is refering to Ireland rather than your here refering to Estonia or wherever.

usernamegoes

Spook_ie wrote: »

Wrong again, surge pricing would vary with demand throughout the day plus what ever rate Uber decided was the base rate. The 2 tier rate doesn't change other than with time, no extra for rainy days, concert days, bus strikes etc.

I work to the regulations, that's why a few years ago there were 3 rates, a special rate for Xmas Eve, New Year's etc, it was removed I still work with whatever the meter rate is, if at some stage they removed rate 2 I'd still be working to the regulations, as I said in previous replies to your questioning lines, if they decided that all taxis were to become WATs then I'd work to that regulation or not at all.

So what are you trying to prove or disprove?

Now after interrogation over whether I use a meter, who's going to decide Uber's rates and percentage of WATs if rideshare was introduced here, Uber or the NTA, at the moment it's the NTA but Uber would love to have free rein, and don't deny they wouldn't.

It's surge pricing and you use it because it suits you. You pretend you don't like it because Uber use it in some jurisdictions and you don't like Uber. We get it.

The consumer will choose which rates they will accept on Uber or other ride-sharing platform. I don't think I would be opposed to placing caps in fit-for-purpose ride-sharing regulations.

Uber may love to have free rein (and I am sure you would too if you could get away with charging more than you do already with your surge pricing) but we don't have to let them and if we did then the market would tell them where to go if people wouldn't pay it or the rich would and the rest of us would use taxis which would suit you I presume.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Uber is here, they work within the regulations, you'd like them to ditch the regulations in favour of something that they'd prefer

They can't be made to work within the regulations as they're a taxi as per the regulations. That's not the case in other jurisdictions. There are other places that actually have ride sharing.

Spook_ie wrote: »

I'd like to ditch regulations for something I'd prefer but I know that regulations are there for a reason, therefore I follow the regulations.

Ride sharing is not taxi-ing.

However, on regulation....

If the regulator brought out a regulation tomorrow saying that you couldn't operate a taxi that was more than 2 years old, you'd fight it right? Or would you blindly accept regulation no matter what? Have there never been bad laws or bad regulations? Have there been bad regulations such that innovation is stifled? Of course - and that's what's happening here.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Of course I'm assuming that your here is refering to Ireland rather than your here refering to Estonia or wherever.

Based on the post of mine that you quoted, yes. I'll usually indicate if I'm referring to my experience where I currently reside...although it may be obivous to most if I'm indicating or referring to some experience of using Uber/InDriver/Beat or another ride sharing application - as they simply don't function or are not available in Ireland (in reality).

makeorbrake wrote: »

Sure, if you give one platform a free rein, then that kind of thing is possible - regardless of industry. Uber doesn't have to be the only show in town. And regulation can be both progressive/pro-innovation and functional.

Do you think that the drivers on the other platforms won't game the system too?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you think that the drivers on the other platforms won't game the system too?

How is it any different to any other market? Since there ever was any sort of trading, there have been circumstances where entities try and collaborate on price. Of course, it's a weakness where there are few players in a market - in any given industry. However, if competition between entities doesn't fix it, then that's where a regulator earns his/her money ...or the competition authority.

Where I'm based right now, I've seen competition work very well. Uber were not cheap by any means - and their algo was doing its own gaming. It's not in any way illegal - they play off customer lethargy/psychology and play the numbers on all kinds of situations. If someone just uses uber and is not open to using other platforms, then there's a good chance they'll take the opportunity to take more $ off you.

For this reason, I switched to InDriver...and that app here has gained traction. So much so - that Uber have had to pull in their antlers. I still rarely use uber but I always check the price on their platform when ordering an InDriver.

makeorbrake wrote: »

How is it any different to any other market? Since there ever was any sort of trading, there have been circumstances where entities try and collaborate on price. Of course, it's a weakness where there are few players in a market - in any given industry. However, if competition between entities doesn't fix it, then that's where a regulator earns his/her money ...or the competition authority.

Where I'm based right now, I've seen competition work very well. Uber were not cheap by any means - and their algo was doing its own gaming. It's not in any way illegal - they play off customer lethargy/psychology and play the numbers on all kinds of situations. If someone just uses uber and is not open to using other platforms, then there's a good chance they'll take the opportunity to take more $ off you.

For this reason, I switched to InDriver...and that app here has gained traction. So much so - that Uber have had to pull in their antlers. I still rarely use uber but I always check the price on their platform when ordering an InDriver.

There are other ways of ensuring that customers pay decent, reasonable prices - rather than setting up systems that work only for the most technically and financially literate.

You could just regulate prices at a reasonable level.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There are other ways of ensuring that customers pay decent, reasonable prices - rather than setting up systems that work only for the most technically and financially literate.

You could just regulate prices at a reasonable level.

You could regulate prices. Oftentimes, its better to let the market find its own level. Unless there's something not working, then there's no need to intervene.

monument

makeorbrake wrote: »

I have no intention of going down that road. As an aside with your route analogy, I don't have to worry much about route choice - the tech decides (based on real time conditions) and its not set up to screw the passenger.

I have no intention of convincing either of you two (and a few others here) that the views you're expressing are wayward and not in the interests of all consumers. So long as neutrals who visit here can see what you're up to - that's good enough for me.

And to that point, suggesting that there is no way to enable ride sharing and facilitate WA'ability levels at the same time is a complete fallacy.

makeorbrake wrote: »

You seem to think I'm under some sort of obligation in terms of my participation in the discussion here (as in - on your terms only). That's not the case.

It's my view that it is yourself and a few others that are coming out with repeating the very same stuff. You can disagree as you wish with that - but others can make up their own minds.

The bottom line here is that far more adverse problems are solved every day of the week around the planet than simply facilitating both ride sharing and WA. Putting a measure in place that snuffs out one is not a necessary action to take. You can claim otherwise (as no doubt you will) but I don't agree.

You can claim that the two things couldn't possibly be addressed and facilitated together (to the point that both are enabled) - and when you do that, you will lack any credibility in the eyes of ordinary consumers.

They are somewhat correct -- if you keep making a claim you kind of are under an obligation to the community here to actually go some way in backing up that claim.

Just to be clear here: It's not ok just to say it will be solved but not give an outline of how. Your other options are saying you don't know or just not replying. If the problem has been solved elsewhere then a link to reputable source should be easy to find.

And as far as I can see you are repeating the same thing over and over as much as anybody else.

-- moderator

monument wrote: »

They are somewhat correct -- if you keep making a claim you kind of are under an obligation to the community here to actually go some way in backing up that claim.

Just to be clear here: It's not ok just to say it will be solved but not give an outline of how. Your other options are saying you don't know or just not replying. If the problem has been solved elsewhere then a link to reputable source should be easy to find.

Ok, fine. Various incentives can be offered by the state to induce more WAV's onto the streets in terms of public transport. That can be done in the context of separate regulation/licensing of Taxi's and ride sharing. Such incentives do not necessitate the stunting of the development of ride sharing in Ireland.

One more approach....The relevant authorities could collaborate with ride sharing services (such as uber but not limited to uber) to bring about an innovative solution to the problem or to manipulate licensing such that more WAV's are induced yet ride sharing in Ireland is not killed off at source.

Uber and Lyft are both involved in schemes in the U.S. where they collaborate with public transit authorities in order to extend the reach of public transit systems i.e. services are combined with uber/lyft providing the 'last mile' service - getting more people onto public transport seamlessly with combined ticketing.

Innovative approaches are possible if the will is there. However, if it suits certain stakeholders interests NOT to find such a solution, then none will be found. I have provided an outline of potential approaches to the problem as per the Mod's post. That doesn't put me under an obligation to present a detailed development plan for taxi services, ride sharing services, etc. in Ireland as part of a discussion on a public forum.

I still maintain that whilst it will require some innovative thinking, greater problems are solved week in - week out around the world. It's very much possible if the will is there.

monument wrote:

And as far as I can see you are repeating the same thing over and over as much as anybody else.

Yet, I was the only one to invite others to 'agree to disagree' rather than attempts to dominate the conversation and to try to disengage from that vortex.
You'll appreciate that I'm taking a viewpoint that whilst I'd wager is popular among those who have ever had the opportunity to use ride sharing services, is a minority view in terms of active participants on this thread. With that, I'd hope that it makes for healthy debate and discussion to facilitate all viewpoints rather than allow one viewpoint to dominate proceedings. That would be tantamount to an echo chamber.

Regardless, if your ride share regulations give people a cheap way of entering, what is essentially, a taxi service, then the economics of it, and human nature, mean that unless there is some kind of legislation to ensure that people put WATs on the road, they won't.

Now as I mentioned in an earlier post quoting the transport minister, when they get to the 10% in 2020, what they'll do afterwards I haven't a notion BUT if they don't want to revert to a smaller percentage of WAVs then they are likely to later revisit whatever legislation they decide on and rebalance the ratio again.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ok, fine. Various incentives can be offered by the state to induce more WAV's onto the streets in terms of public transport. That can be done in the context of separate regulation/licensing of Taxi's and ride sharing. Such incentives do not necessitate the stunting of the development of ride sharing in Ireland.

One more approach....The relevant authorities could collaborate with ride sharing services (such as uber but not limited to uber) to bring about an innovative solution to the problem or to manipulate licensing such that more WAV's are induced yet ride sharing in Ireland is not killed off at source.

Uber and Lyft are both involved in schemes in the U.S. where they collaborate with public transit authorities in order to extend the reach of public transit systems i.e. services are combined with uber/lyft providing the 'last mile' service - getting more people onto public transport seamlessly with combined ticketing.

Innovative approaches are possible if the will is there. However, if it suits certain stakeholders interests NOT to find such a solution, then none will be found. I have provided an outline of potential approaches to the problem as per the Mod's post. That doesn't put me under an obligation to present a detailed development plan for taxi services, ride sharing services, etc. in Ireland as part of a discussion on a public forum.

I still maintain that whilst it will require some innovative thinking, greater problems are solved week in - week out around the world. It's very much possible if the will is there.

Yet, I was the only one to invite others to 'agree to disagree' rather than attempts to dominate the conversation and to try to disengage from that vortex.
You'll appreciate that I'm taking a viewpoint that whilst I'd wager is popular among those who have ever had the opportunity to use ride sharing services, is a minority view in terms of active participants on this thread. With that, I'd hope that it makes for healthy debate and discussion to facilitate all viewpoints rather than allow one viewpoint to dominate proceedings. That would be tantamount to an echo chamber.

Yes but the vocal side at least try to back up their arguments, rather than putting their fingers in their ears and going La La La to drown out the arguments like some.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Regardless, if your ride share regulations give people a cheap way of entering, what is essentially, a taxi service, then the economics of it, and human nature, mean that unless there is some kind of legislation to ensure that people put WATs on the road, they won't.

I disagree. I mentioned incentives - and incentives usually implicate a financial inducement in some way. There is no reason why this can't be pursued such that ride sharing and WAV availability are addressed. However, that will never happen in the minds of those who either don't care about enabling ride sharing or have a vested interest in snuffing it out - which many here do - whether that's because of the competitive threat or with others, due to ideological views.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Now as I mentioned in an earlier post quoting the transport minister, when they get to the 10% in 2020, what they'll do afterwards I haven't a notion BUT if they don't want to revert to a smaller percentage of WAVs then they are likely to later revisit whatever legislation they decide on and rebalance the ratio again.

And all the while, the country is being deprived of ride sharing services and the efficiency which that can bring. It's backward.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yes but the vocal side at least try to back up their arguments

I've just provided you with that basis - if you have a genuine interest in genuine discussion, then you wouldn't have made that remark right now.
Furthermore, you may just have a prejudiced view in speaking with authority as per that statement, don't you think...

Spook_ie wrote: »

rather than putting their fingers in their ears and going La La La to drown out the arguments like some.

Ok, so let me understand this correctly? I speak with the contrarian view (and one other) whilst a gaggle of you go the other direction and I'm the one drowning you out? Really?

A couple of things...
- Whilst I respect the mods view and I abide by it, I still respectfully disagree in terms of having to lay out this and that to appease you and your co-travelers. However, I have complied with that so I'm unsure where the cause for complaint is.

My only desire here is to provide the counter-argument so that a visiting neutral can make up his/her own mind on the subject. And to that end, I'm satisfied.

Good night.

makeorbrake wrote: »

I disagree. I mentioned incentives - and incentives usually implicate a financial inducement in some way. There is no reason why this can't be pursued such that ride sharing and WAV availability are addressed. However, that will never happen in the minds of those who either don't care about enabling ride sharing or have a vested interest in snuffing it out - which many here do - whether that's because of the competitive threat or with others, due to ideological views.

And all the while, the country is being deprived of ride sharing services and the efficiency which that can bring. It's backward.

I've just provided you with that basis - if you have a genuine interest in genuine discussion, then you wouldn't have made that remark right now.
Furthermore, you may just have a prejudiced view in speaking with authority as per that statement, don't you think...

Ok, so let me understand this correctly? I speak with the contrarian view (and one other) whilst a gaggle of you go the other direction and I'm the one drowning you out? Really?
A couple of things...
- Whilst I respect the mods view and I abide by it, I still respectfully disagree in terms of having to lay out this and that to appease you and your co-travelers. However, I have complied with that so I'm unsure where the cause for complaint is.

My only desire here is to provide the counter-argument so that a visiting neutral can make up his/her own mind on the subject. And to that end, I'm satisfied.

Good night.

And that's all we asked, a counter argument with some thought behind it, rather than a standard "there must be a way" " ride share is the cure for all ailments" without any backup to the thought process, which is kindred to the Brexit unicorns.

At the end of the day, unless you are a lobbiest for Uber, Lyft etc. then it'll be decided by people above our paygrades.

Spook_ie wrote: »

And that's all we asked, a counter argument with some thought behind it, rather than a standard "there must be a way"

Those were demands plural - and as I said, I don't agree that there's a need. I believe that 'there must be a way' covers it actually. But - be that as it may - and in line with the mods request - provided.

Spook_ie wrote: »

" ride share is the cure for all ailments"

I'm not sure what that means? Ride sharing is for getting from A to B whilst being a win/win for consumers/drivers/the efficiency of the country (IF it's regulated properly). I don't remember anyone claiming it was anything beyond that.

Spook_ie wrote: »

At the end of the day, unless you are a lobbiest for Uber, Lyft etc.

I think you are over-estimating the both of us if you think I am a lobbyist spending time on an irish public forum in a professional capacity. :-)

Spook_ie wrote: »

it'll be decided by people above our paygrades.

It will be decided by people that are elected or answer to those who are elected who are supposed to act in the interests of the people (all of the people). Where so much falls down in Ireland.

Sitting in the back of an Uber in Bordeaux having only arrived here a couple of hours ago. The car is spotlessly clean and in great condition. I don't have to worry about not speaking French, not having cash to pay, and the app keeps me updated as to when I'll reach my destination. I can press a button to inform my family of where I am at all times.

I wish we had this more freely available in Ireland.

Stephen15

downtheroad wrote: »

Sitting in the back of an Uber in Bordeaux having only arrived here a couple of hours ago. The car is spotlessly clean and in great condition. I don't have to worry about not speaking French, not having cash to pay, and the app keeps me updated as to when I'll reach my destination. I can press a button to inform my family of where I am at all times.

I wish we had this more freely available in Ireland.

All well and good until Uber you're on a bus or Luas stuck in traffic behind a bunch of Ubers and taxis. Allowing Uber to operate in Dublin in particular would cause more traffic congestion in the city centre it's as if the traffic situation in Dublin city centre isn't bad enough and a lot of that congestion is created by taxis add Uber into the mix and you have a recipe for disaster.

Uber has also been known as an alternative for people to using public transport due to it's price being relatively competitive despite it being a less efficient use of road space.

Stephen15 wrote: »

Allowing Uber to operate in Dublin in particular would cause more traffic congestion in the city centre it's as if the traffic situation in Dublin city centre isn't bad enough and a lot of that congestion is created by taxis add Uber into the mix and you have a recipe for disaster.

That's remarkable too - to think that they would be soo popular as to cause congestion. I suppose they must be doing something right to achieve that kind of thing.

Mind you, Uber/lyft have gotten involved in schemes in the U.S. where they've collaborated with transit authorities - resulting in more people using public transport.

Stephen15

makeorbrake wrote: »

That's remarkable too - to think that they would be soo popular as to cause congestion. I suppose they must be doing something right to achieve that kind of thing.

Mind you, Uber/lyft have gotten involved in schemes in the U.S. where they've collaborated with transit authorities - resulting in more people using public transport.

It's good for them not everyone else who has to put up with the congestion they create and that includes Uber or Lyft passengers who are being sold a pup as they are still sitting in traffic regardless of how handy or convenient Uber and Lyft are.