Uber

usernamegoes wrote: »

Reasonable people can agree or disagree that Uber is a tech or transport company.

It has no impact on whether the drivers need to follow regulations that exist for drivers. Very little would change in Ireland if the CJEU had ruled the other way.

The question that is relevant is what should the regulations be for drivers of taxis, hackneys or those who want to do ridesharing?

The regulations are in place for any number of reasons so I suppose once you define that once the driver is in it for profit and is in a potentially sensitive environment with members of the public then the same regulations should apply to all.
I aint trying to argue with you here.

kippy wrote: »

The regulations are in place for any number of reasons so I suppose once you define that once the driver is in it for profit and is in a potentially sensitive environment with members of the public then the same regulations should apply to all.
I aint trying to argue with you here.

Cool. I think we agree that the question of transport v tech company isn't relevant.

In terms of your assertions that regulations for taxis should be the same for ridesharing. I would disagree I'm not sure why they should be the same.

Should the taxi rules apply to hackneys? Should limousine rules apply to taxis? My view is no, because they're different things.

usernamegoes wrote: »

Cool. I think we agree that the question of transport v tech company isn't relevant.

In terms of your assertions that regulations for taxis should be the same for ridesharing. I would disagree I'm not sure why they should be the same.

Should the taxi rules apply to hackneys? Should limousine rules apply to taxis? My view is no, because they're different things.

Agree.

There have to be standards and baselines across the board simply because of the fact that these are services that the public use for payment.

kippy wrote: »

Agree.

There have to be standards and baselines across the board simply because of the fact that these are services that the public use for payment.

Agree. Standards like cars should have NCT and drivers should be vetted are fine baselines.

IMO, requiring a WAV for new entrants or putting an ugly sicker on your car is not a baseline that I think we should use.

kippy wrote: »

Sorry, I'd forgotten that part. I just re-read it there. Uber ar a Transport company in he eyes of the EU. That's a fairly factual result.

More deliberate obtuseness. Nobody here has disputed that the ECJ made such a ruling. Courts make rulings all the time. Regulators make regulations all of the time. Legislators legislate all of the time. It doesn't mean they get it right all of the time.

kippy wrote: »

I'd asked the question to give me a country with "world class" regulation - you've not done that. I don't know why. Possibly because there's no such thing as "world class" regulation. Let me know what you eventually decide on this.

And I asked some questions of my own that you didn't answer. I could go with your "I don't know why" - but I'll go out on a limb here - you haven't a clue.

You have NO credibility if you think that it doesn't matter what decisions a regulator takes, the quality of those decisions and as to whether those decisions are sufficiently thought through as to nurture innovation in a country for the benefit of all of that country's citizens.

kippy wrote: »

I suppose the last two responses you have are tied together. Tax policy is a part of regulation, as are polices enforce by the IDA and others that make this country a hub for R and D and as such innovation and overall a good thing for the Irish consumer.
That doesn't suit your arguments, I know, so I don't expect any type of coherent/logical response to it but it would be good to get a response on where in the world you see as having "World Class" regulation.

kippy wrote: »

I suppose the last two responses you have are tied together. Tax policy is a part of regulation, as are polices enforce by the IDA and others that make this country a hub for R and D and as such innovation and overall a good thing for the Irish consumer.

Tax policy is tax policy. I'm talking about customer-facing regulation.

kippy wrote: »

That doesn't suit your arguments, I know, so I don't expect any type of coherent/logical response to it .

Right back at you.
Be embittered and obnoxious all you want. I don't care.

kippy wrote: »

it would be good to get a response on where in the world you see as having "World Class" regulation.

You and your fellow travellers here are great at making demands - yet when it comes to answering anything I put to you, there's silence.

And once again - seeing as you came back to it a second time - it's EMBARRASSING for you if you actually believe that there is no variance in the quality of the decisions made by a regulator! Good grief.

kippy wrote: »

The poster I've been discussing this with doesn't seem to recognise Irish or EU laws/regulations.

The poster you have been 'discussing' [sic] this with has never suggested anything of the sort. Just plain lies.

Regulators regulate, legislators legislate, judges hand down decisions - and they're not right 100% of the time. Furthermore, despite their decision, Uber (as a global company) started off as a technology company and remain a technology company....regardless of a legal interpretation in one region.

kippy wrote: »

I suppose the reality is Uber has to comply with regulations aimed at many areas in many different jurisdictions.

Has Uber ever not complied with irish law? Please do tell me as this comes up from you and your co-travellers the whole time.

Still no mention of these world class regulators, nor of that ability to accept the decisions of those entrusted to make them or now also no attempt to accept that there are regulations and policies that actively promote and reward innovation in this very country for the betterment of its citizens.
Finally, resorting to name calling. The last refuge of a baseless set of arguments.
Absolutely zero point in engaging further with you.

kippy wrote: »

Still no mention of these world class regulators

There's a qualifying question that you are conveniently ignoring here. Can you confirm first of all that there can be a variance in the decisions taken by regulators? That those decisions could be chronically bad or progressive? That those decisions could be made from a pro-innovation mindset or a protectionist mindset?

Let us know - because there is absolutely no point in having a discussion with someone on this if they believe from the outset that there is no such thing as 'world class regulation'. :rolleyes:

kippy wrote: »

also no attempt to accept that there are regulations and policies that actively promote and reward innovation in this very country for the betterment of its citizens.

We were talking about specific regulators - that are consumer facing. The example you give is not relelvant. It doesn't even implicate a regulator. I'm not sure how I can make this more understandable for you.

kippy wrote: »

Absolutely zero point in engaging further with you.

At least we agree on something...or at the very least, going further is contingent of your understanding of some fundamental basics...see above.

makeorbrake wrote: »

There's a qualifying question that you are conveniently ignoring here. Can you confirm first of all that there can be a variance in the decisions taken by regulators? That those decisions could be chronically bad or progressive? That those decisions could be made from a pro-innovation mindset or a protectionist mindset?

Let us know - because there is absolutely no point in having a discussion with someone on this if they believe from the outset that there is no such thing as 'world class regulation'. :rolleyes:

We were talking about specific regulators - that are consumer facing. The example you give is not relelvant. It doesn't even implicate a regulator. I'm not sure how I can make this more understandable for you.

At least we agree on something...or at the very least, going further is contingent of your understanding of some fundamental basics...see above.

You brought up the term but can't back it up.
Hence there is no such thing as world class regulation. That's as fundamental as it gets.
Tax regulation isn't customer facing?
Another fundamental basic....

makeorbrake wrote: »

Regulators regulate, legislators legislate, judges hand down decisions - and they're not right 100% of the time. Furthermore, despite their decision, Uber (as a global company) started off as a technology company and remain a technology company....regardless of a legal interpretation in one region.

Has Uber ever not complied with irish law? Please do tell me as this comes up from you and your co-travellers the whole time.

That is a subjective view which you hold that Uber is a technology company but the law states otherwise that they are a transport company. They also may view themselves as a technology but their definition is worth nothing if the laws defintion is different.

No they are complying with Irish law. What you seem to think is we should tailor existing laws to suit the operation of uber in Ireland.

kippy wrote: »

You brought up the term but can't back it up.
Hence there is no such thing as world class regulation. That's as fundamental as it gets.

Complete and utter nonsense. ...and that's why you can't answer the questions I put to you. It's embarrassing for you that you actually continue to maintain that line (i.e. there's no such thing as world class regulation).

kippy wrote: »

Tax regulation isn't customer facing?
Another fundamental basic....

Firstly, we were talking about regulators. What regulator has been responsible for the tax POLICY that you speak of? Secondly, does every consumer in Ireland have a registered corporation? Because - and correct me if I'm wrong - the tax policy that is being referred to is corporate tax policy.

Stephen15 wrote: »

That is a subjective view which you hold that Uber is a technology company but the law states otherwise that they are a transport company. They also may view themselves as a technology but their definition is worth nothing if the laws defintion is different.

The interpretation in terms of european law and the consideration of the ECJ in terms of their activities in Europe is that Uber is a transport company. Europe is but one region. They were established in silicon valley - home to technology companies....employing technologists. Now, the ECJ dictate that they have to abide by certain rules within this region under the interpretation that they are a transport provider. Fine. Not disputed. Yet, the company - as a silicon valley startup - turned unicorn - remains a global technology company headquartered in the Bay area.

Stephen15 wrote: »

No they are complying with Irish law.

The suggestion and inference was being made that they weren't.

Stephen15 wrote: »

What you seem to think is we should tailor existing laws to suit the operation of uber in Ireland.

That's incorrect. What I believe is that ride sharing deserves it's own regulation as ride sharing is not taxi-ing and ride sharing is bigger than Uber.

I also believe that the economy and consumers are being deprived of an innovative approach simply so that taxi drivers can be appeased and protectionism reigns. I hope it's now clear that this is my view - not what you said.

makeorbrake wrote: »

The interpretation in terms of european law and the consideration of the ECJ in terms of their activities in Europe is that Uber is a transport company. Europe is but one region. They were established in silicon valley - home to technology companies....employing technologists. Now, the ECJ dictate that they have to abide by certain rules within this region under the interpretation that they are a transport provider. Fine. Not disputed. Yet, the company - as a silicon valley startup - turned unicorn - remains a global technology company headquartered in the Bay area.

Law only applies in one jurisdiction. As far as we are concerned here in Ireland they are a transportation what is done in other parts of the world is irrelevant here in Ireland and in Europe.

That's incorrect. What I believe is that ride sharing deserves it's own regulation as ride sharing is not taxi-ing and ride sharing is bigger than Uber.

I also believe that the economy and consumers are being deprived of an innovative approach simply so that taxi drivers can be appeased and protectionism reigns. I hope it's now clear that this is my view - not what you said.

In my view there is not enough different between taxis and hackneys and ride sharing for it to be viewed as a completely different mode of transport from taxis and hackneys it's a very similar concept and serves practically the same or similar purpose.

Setting out their own regulations for these firms would be setting a separate set of laws for the like of Uber, Lyft and a whole host of other of these firms which are very similar to taxis and hackneys but would be regulated differently. Also Uber doesn't have to nessecarily use taxis they can use hackney licences too.

Just because there is a demand of a particular good or service doesn't nessecarily mean that good or service should be provided. Uber could very well bring more harm than good. It may be good for it's users or potential users but may be harmful to society as a whole.

Stephen15 wrote: »

Law only applies in one jurisdiction. As far as we are concerned here in Ireland they are a transportation what is done in other parts of the world is irrelevant here in Ireland and in Europe.

I'm not disputing the jurisdiction or the ruling. I'm simply pointing out that as a global company, they're a technology company - always were and always will be.
I'm also pointing out that bad laws/regulations/rulings are made all of the time.

Stephen15 wrote: »

In my view there is not enough different between taxis and hackneys and ride sharing for it to be viewed as a completely different mode of transport from taxis and hackneys it's a very similar concept and serves practically the same or similar purpose.

Setting out their own regulations for these firms would be setting a separate set of laws for the like of Uber, Lyft and a whole host of other of these firms which are very similar to taxis and hackneys but would be regulated differently. Also Uber doesn't have to nessecarily use taxis they can use hackney licences too.

That's your opinion - and I have no issue with you holding such an opinion. However, it's not an opinion I share.

Stephen15 wrote: »

Just because there is a demand of a particular good or service doesn't nessecarily mean that good or service should be provided. Uber could very well bring more harm than good. It may be good for it's users or potential users but may be harmful to society as a whole.

I agree that there is cause and effect with everything. However, it all comes down to the nuances of regulation. It's another reason for separate regulation. I respect the fact that Uber was the first to innovate to the point of making a major impact. However, there's plenty I don't like about the company (ironically, given the way this discussion has panned out). However, there has not been even an openness to explore how ride sharing could be manipulated for the good of consumers, the economy and society as a whole. The attitude here has been - they're taxis - they operate as taxis or they can sling their hook.
Lazy regulation or protectionist regulation or regulation that is anything but progressive and pro-innovation is harmful to society too.

[Deleted User]

Currently, as a consumer, I can summon a taxi to my location in Galway using an app. I can also pay for said taxi using the same app without ever opening my wallet. When I open the app I can see all the different taxis driving around Galway.

makeorbrake, I have 3 questions for you which I'm hoping you can answer to further the discussion.

1. How is this any different from how uber operates to warrant different regulations given that the regulations (same as all regulations) are there for the protection and benefit of the consumer?

2. You have said multiple times that the WAV requirement is a barrier put in place to block uber. Pretending for a second that Uber had a different set of regulations to abide by, would it be possible for for uber to run their full services here if they had identical regulations as either taxis or hackneys albeit with the WAV requirement waived?

3. Do you think Uber would be capable of providing a sufficient service to be inclusive of all members of society if left to their own devices i.e. if I was a wheelchair user, do you think that Uber would be my first choice?

Deleted User wrote: »

1. How is this any different from how uber operates to warrant different regulations given that the regulations (same as all regulations) are there for the protection and benefit of the consumer?

Regulations are put in place for the benefit of all stakeholders - not just the consumer. With regard to the concept of ride sharing, the essence of it as it was originally intended implicates the use of the existing car fleet and existing drivers on routes they would be driving anyway.
Furthermore, that regulator would be kept busy in smoothing out the insurance situation. Given the way that industry rolls in Ireland, then that's a job in itself. If the regulator was successful in enabling ride sharing in Ireland that would be a job well done....one that leads to increased efficiency for the country.

Deleted User wrote: »

2. You have said multiple times that the WAV requirement is a barrier put in place to block uber. Pretending for a second that Uber had a different set of regulations to abide by, would it be possible for for uber to run their full services here if they had identical regulations as either taxis or hackneys albeit with the WAV requirement waived?

If ride sharing hasn't been enabled in Ireland and has in other markets, there must be a reason for that. This (WAV requirement) appears to be the primary issue right now.

Uber and other ride sharing apps - provide the platform. I wouldn't suggest that there be a regulation to fit one specific platform but for ride sharing generally. As regards a specific regulator, their mandate should be to enable ride sharing services in Ireland. That implicates consideration of the rest of your query (re. existing regulation outside of the WAV requirement). This should be tweaked until such time as ride sharing is enabled.
Now if that means that there is a certain downside effect for someone, then that should be considered. However, I have no interest in protecting the taxi industry for the sake of it. Neither should a regulator.

Deleted User wrote: »

3. Do you think Uber would be capable of providing a sufficient service to be inclusive of all members of society if left to their own devices i.e. if I was a wheelchair user, do you think that Uber would be my first choice?

In answer to your question, my interest has never specifically been aligned with Uber - rather the advancement of ride sharing generally in Ireland. I've also never suggested an unregulated market. It's about effective regulation that is pro-innovation.
I'd refer you back to the pages of discussion there has been on the consideration of the notion that there's no reason why those in control can't create an environment in which both (ride sharing availability and WAV access) are advanced. ...which has been discussed at length already.

end of the road

makeorbrake wrote: »

The interpretation in terms of european law and the consideration of the ECJ in terms of their activities in Europe is that Uber is a transport company. Europe is but one region. They were established in silicon valley - home to technology companies....employing technologists. Now, the ECJ dictate that they have to abide by certain rules within this region under the interpretation that they are a transport provider. Fine. Not disputed. Yet, the company - as a silicon valley startup - turned unicorn - remains a global technology company headquartered in the Bay area.

being based in silicon valley doesn't automatically make a company a technology company. if uber is a technology company then anyone who has an ap would be a technology company. they are a transport company, a dispatch operator in the situations they are not directly operating their own cars. it doesn't matter who they employ or where they are based.

makeorbrake wrote: »

The suggestion and inference was being made that they weren't.

it is you claiming such a suggestion and inference was made, it wasn't.

makeorbrake wrote: »

That's incorrect. What I believe is that ride sharing deserves it's own regulation as ride sharing is not taxi-ing and ride sharing is bigger than Uber.

ride sharing has it's regulation. it is the psv regulations which regulate all public service vehicles.

makeorbrake wrote: »

I also believe that the economy and consumers are being deprived of an innovative approach simply so that taxi drivers can be appeased and protectionism reigns. I hope it's now clear that this is my view - not what you said.

and you believe wrong. you have been shown that you are wrong. you have been shown that the psv regulations are not there to appease taxi drivers. you have been given an example of ride sharing taking place in ireland back as far as at least the 19770s.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Regulations are put in place for the benefit of all stakeholders - not just the consumer. With regard to the concept of ride sharing, the essence of it as it was originally intended implicates the use of the existing car fleet and existing drivers on routes they would be driving anyway.
Furthermore, that regulator would be kept busy in smoothing out the insurance situation. Given the way that industry rolls in Ireland, then that's a job in itself. If the regulator was successful in enabling ride sharing in Ireland that would be a job well done....one that leads to increased efficiency for the country.

Ah c'mon now if that was the case then the only payment for uber would be reimbursement for fuel and the only people driving for Uber would be regular car drivers who are making the journies anyway and not seeking to earn a living out of it. That's not the case people are using it as a taxi service and people are using it as a means of making a living.

end of the road wrote: »

ride sharing has it's regulation. it is the psv regulations which regulate all public service vehicles.

Do you accept that there are different types of regulations that are appropriate for different types of service?

usernamegoes wrote: »

Do you accept that there are different types of regulations that are appropriate for different types of service?

But it's not a different type of service

Stephen15 wrote: »

But it's not a different type of service

Of course it it. Is a taxi different from a limousine service? Is it different from a hackney? Should all the different regulations for those be made the same?

I don't want to pay for a 'professional driver' who passed a test on routes etc. I am happy to pay less for someone to follow a GPS. I don't want to pay for a taxi driver's high licence fee. I don't want to pay extra to use bus lanes. I don't want to pay extra to hail someone on the street, I don't mind hailing with an app and waiting.

I trust certain companies to enforce standards on the cars and drivers more than a regulator. At busy times, I would like to pay extra to encourage drivers to collect me rather than waiting longer.

Should Aldi and Dunnes be forced to have the standards of Supervalu or should the consumer choose?

end of the road

usernamegoes wrote: »

Do you accept that there are different types of regulations that are appropriate for different types of service?

[/QUOTE]

yes and that is what we have.

usernamegoes wrote: »

Of course it it. Is a taxi different from a limousine service? Is it different from a hackney? Should all the different regulations for those be made the same?

they are different but ride sharing isn't different enough to require it's own separate regulation to those regulations. it is covered perfectly within those regulations as there are part time and full time drivers.

usernamegoes wrote: »

I don't want to pay for a 'professional driver' who passed a test on routes etc. I am happy to pay less for someone to follow a GPS. I don't want to pay for a taxi driver's high licence fee. I don't want to pay extra to use bus lanes. I don't want to pay extra to hail someone on the street, I don't mind hailing with an app and waiting.

that is fine, but you don't need separate regulations specifically for ride sharing to allow that.

usernamegoes wrote: »

I trust certain companies to enforce standards on the cars and drivers more than a regulator.

that's great but thankfully we don't simply allow the people to be left to put their trust in companies in relation to this matter. operators are regulated to insure they comply with basic standards.

usernamegoes wrote: »

At busy times, I would like to pay extra to encourage drivers to collect me rather than waiting longer.

Should Aldi and Dunnes be forced to have the standards of Supervalu or should the consumer choose?

supermarkets actually are forced to have the same basic standards. food safety, health and safety, employment law, etc.

usernamegoes wrote: »

Of course it it. Is a taxi different from a limousine service? Is it different from a hackney? Should all the different regulations for those be made the same?

It falls into one of those categories. It would be very similar to a hackney service so perhaps they could be allowed using hackney licences.

I don't want to pay for a 'professional driver' who passed a test on routes etc. I am happy to pay less for someone to follow a GPS. I don't want to pay for a taxi driver's high licence fee. I don't want to pay extra to use bus lanes. I don't want to pay extra to hail someone on the street, I don't mind hailing with an app and waiting.

They're the rules and they are in place for a good reason to prevent unlicensed taxis services from operating and acting as a form of unfair competition.

I trust certain companies to enforce standards on the cars and drivers more than a regulator. At busy times, I would like to pay extra to encourage drivers to collect me rather than waiting longer.

Companies are not the state they do not make the rules if that was the case they would be making the rules to suit themselves and not the general public.

Should Aldi and Dunnes be forced to have the standards of Supervalu or should the consumer choose?

They should have to meet the rules and regulations set out by the government. What you appear to be supporting is a form of complete free market capitalism with zero governement involvement so in order words you think Uber should be able to do what they like according to you.

end of the road wrote: »

yes and that is what we have.

Great. We agree that appropriate regulations should be made for different things.

they are different but ride sharing isn't different enough to require it's own separate regulation to those regulations. it is covered perfectly within those regulations as there are part time and full time drivers.

In your opinion, that is all. I don't think hackneys are majorly different from taxis but I accept they are different services.

that is fine, but you don't need separate regulations specifically for ride sharing to allow that.

Well we do unless you want to get rid of taxis.

that's great but thankfully we don't simply allow the people to be left to put their trust in companies in relation to this matter. operators are regulated to insure they comply with basic standards.

So you would be happy for the private company to deal with compliance with non-basic standards. I can agree to that. Let's have the regulator deal with basic standards and non-basic standards and have the private company deal with basic standards and non-basic standards. I know who I'd be reporting a rude driver to.

supermarkets actually are forced to have the same basic standards. food safety, health and safety, employment law, etc.

Yup, basic standards. Non-basics standards they are free to compete which you want to deny to in the transport sector.

Stephen15 wrote: »

It falls into one of those categories. It would be very similar to a hackney service so perhaps they could be allowed using hackney licences.

They're the rules and they are in place for a good reason to prevent unlicensed taxis services from operating and acting as a form of unfair competition.

Companies are not the state they do not make the rules if that was the case they would be making the rules to suit themselves and not the general public.

They should have to meet the rules and regulations set out by the government. What you appear to be supporting is a form of complete free market capitalism with zero governement involvement so in order words you think Uber should be able to do what they like according to you.

Similar response to the other guy.

I am not advocating unregulated market. I have said many times that I support basic standards like reasonable safety standards and background checking. Not stupid stickers and high fees for a licence to even be allowed do it.

But glad you now agree with me that there should be different regulations for different services.

usernamegoes wrote: »

I am not advocating unregulated market. I have said many times that I support basic standards like reasonable safety standards and background checking. Not stupid stickers and high fees for a licence to even be allowed do it.

So you think anyone who wants a taxi licence and meets basic standards should be given one? Perhaps anyone who wants to run a bus service should be allowed have one too if they meet the basic standards so the Patton Flyer should've been allowed to continue operating.

Stephen15 wrote: »

So you think anyone who wants a taxi licence and meets basic standards should be given one? Perhaps anyone who wants to run a bus service should be allowed have one too if they meet the basic standards so the Patton Flyer should've been allowed to continue operating.

I think there should be only necessary barriers to entry to all industries.

I think people who want to run a bus service should be entitled to if they meet basic reasonable standards. I don't know what the Patton Flyer is.

usernamegoes wrote: »

I think people who want to run a bus service should be entitled to if they meet basic reasonable standards. I don't know what the Patton Flyer is.

Well if that's the case then we should go down the road of 80s style bus deregulation over in the UK it has been a disaster for passengers and they're still trying to pick up the pieces and bring more services back into state control over in the UK.

The Patton Flyer was an unlicensed bus service that operated between Dalkey and the Airport. They kicked up a fuss when a Aircoach were granted a licence for the route and not them even though they were the ones not complying with the rules in the first place.

Stephen15 wrote: »

Well if that's the case then we should go down the road of 80s style bus deregulation over in the UK it has been a disaster for passengers and they're still trying to pick up the pieces and bring more services back into state control over in the UK.

The Patton Flyer was an unlicensed bus service that operated between Dalkey and the Airport. They kicked up a fuss when a Aircoach were granted a licence for the route and not them even though they were the ones not complying with the rules in the first place.

I'm not going to research bus services in the UK and what (if anything) went wring with how they choose to deregulate it.

I have limited views on what the issues would be with allowing buses operate routes. Initially, I can't see an issue with it, but I might get reasons why we would want to limit it. Again, I am not advocating an unregulated market. I want reasonable and fair regulations that allow people to chose what suits them.

I can't see a reason why we would prevent people booking private coaches that comply with minimum standards of safety etc. Do coaches require licences to operate? If so, I wonder if there are unreasonable standards limiting them.