nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Uber

stonebob

Just back from London where I used Airbnb and Uber with great success......Uber was half the price of a taxi and there seemed to be one around every corner ..everyone loves them ..I know there's an argument about regulation of drivers but there's a lot of dodgy taxi drivers too just read the papers ...the drivers were polite ..spotless cars..and they don't tap on..

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

usernamegoes

Stephen15 wrote: »

Which is what we have

Not in my view.

kippy

usernamegoes wrote: »

Not in my view.

So are you with a few others on this thread then? In that the basic issue that needs to change is the requirement for a certain percentage of vehicles to be WAV's?
Or are there more pieces of regulation that are tied to Taxies etc that you want to see waived for "RideSharingServices"?

makeorbrake

end of the road wrote: »

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.

We've been over this a few times. It's a technology company. The app is core to what they do. Your suggestion that any company that has an app is a tech company is absurd.
Other than that, we've been over this a few times. I'm not changing my mind - so we can either repeat ourselves or park it up. I'd suggest we park it up.

end of the road wrote: »

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

I strongly disagree.

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

So you're repeating yourself. You believe that taxi regulations should apply to ride sharing - I don't. I believe it should have it's own regulation. Now - once again, lets park it up.

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.

So my opinion doesn't match yours? How very dare I. Again, we wont be agreeing on this - so in the interests of the actual discussion, lets park it up (or we can keep going round in circles...as you prefer).

Stephen15 wrote: »

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.

Ah, c'mon yourself. When we get to a grown up conversation here where people actually enbrace the idea of ride sharing - then we can discuss that and we can discuss the ills of Uber. However, on your side of the fence, not one has taken the attitude of - yes, lets make sure this gets rolled out but under these specific conditions (other than to lump it in with taxis - knowing that this will kill it).
I haven't bothered to differentiate between uber and actual ridesharing as in this discussion people want NO form of ride sharing (unless its provided by taxi men).

[Deleted User]

makeorbrake wrote: »

We've been over this a few times. It's a technology company.

They have been legally defined as a transport company while operating in the EU, of which Ireland is a part, therefore they are a transport company.

makeorbrake wrote: »

The app is core to what they do.

My local taxi company has an app that works in the exact same way as the Uber app with the exception of rating each other. Does that make them a tech company or a transport company with an app?

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

They have been legally defined as a transport company while operating in the EU, of which Ireland is a part, therefore they are a transport company.

You want to continue on with this? Fine. I've recognised the decision taken by the ECJ in this region. Uber as a global company are a technology company. We can wash rinse and repeat this - all you and others want. I'm not changing my opinion - and evidently neither are you guys. ...so we can waste time on that if you want or we can park it up.

Deleted User wrote: »

My local taxi company has an app that works in the exact same way as the Uber app with the exception of rating each other. Does that make them a tech company or a transport company with an app?

Any business of any size has an app now. All uber did - their whole platform was (and is) the app. That's entirely different and not to recognise that is nonsensical.

[Deleted User]

makeorbrake wrote: »

You want to continue on with this? Fine. I've recognised the decision taken by the ECJ in this region. Uber as a global company are a technology company. We can wash rinse and repeat this - all you and others want. I'm not changing my opinion - and evidently neither are you guys. ...so we can waste time on that if you want or we can park it up.

I'm simply stating a fact, you state opinion, there's a difference.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Any business of any size has an app now. All uber did - their whole platform was (and is) the app. That's entirely different and not to recognise that is nonsensical.

They created an app, it's been copied the world over. Its really nothing special now, several years ago, sure, now, not so much.

My point was even my local taxi company has an almost 100%,identical app to the Uber app. The app is not a big deal and doesn't warrant an exception to be made to regulations that set minimum requirements and protect consumers.

On that basis Uber could start here in a big way tomorrow, literally nothing stopping them except their own intransigence.

Stephen15

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ah, c'mon yourself. When we get to a grown up conversation here where people actually enbrace the idea of ride sharing - then we can discuss that and we can discuss the ills of Uber. However, on your side of the fence, not one has taken the attitude of - yes, lets make sure this gets rolled out but under these specific conditions (other than to lump it in with taxis - knowing that this will kill it).
I haven't bothered to differentiate between uber and actual ridesharing as in this discussion people want NO form of ride sharing (unless its provided by taxi men).

So you accept that taxis can already supply a "ride sharing" service?

The fact is term "ride sharing" or "lift sharing" as that would be the Anglo English term which we use here us a load of nonsense. Sharing implies that it is not a profit making service and it's aim is to take people to places where one would be making a journey anyway so the same as car sharing with a colleague but organised through an app. That's not the case with Uber correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression most Uber drivers in the likes of the US were working to make a living like taxi drivers and are not merely giving a lift to someone to work who works nearby when they are going to work anyway.

makeorbrake

Stephen15 wrote: »

So you accept that taxis can already supply a "ride sharing" service?

Taxi'ing is taxi-ing and ride sharing is ride sharing. They're not the same thing.

Stephen15 wrote: »

The fact is term "ride sharing" or "lift sharing" as that would be the Anglo English term which we use here us a load of nonsense. Sharing implies that it is not a profit making service and it's aim is to take people to places where one would be making a journey anyway so the same as car sharing with a colleague but organised through an app.

That's NOT the case. Where do you think the phrase "the sharing economy" comes from?

Stephen15

makeorbrake wrote: »

Taxi'ing is taxi-ing and ride sharing is ride sharing. They're not the same thing.

So then why did you say people in this thread support no form of ride sharing unless it's provided by taxi drivers. That would suggest that taxi'ing is a form of ride sharing.

That's is NOT the case. Where do you think the phrase "the sharing economy" comes from?

It's not a term I am familiar with. But tell me if you believe an Uber driver is sharing their car with a passenger for a fee is a taxi or hackney driver not doing the same thing.

makeorbrake

Stephen15 wrote: »

So then why did you say people in this thread support no form of ride sharing unless it's provided by taxi drivers. That would suggest that taxi'ing is a form of ride sharing.

Ride sharing (and uber) is being thrown in under taxi regulation...meaning that a taxi driver will run the uber app (in reality).
That's manipulating uber into something it shouldn't ever be.

Stephen15 wrote: »

It's not a term I am familiar with. But tell me if you believe an Uber driver is sharing their car with a passenger for a fee is a taxi or hackney driver not doing the same thing.

I suggest then that you have a read up on what the sharing economy is. It's central to this discussion and that affects your follow on question also.

Other than that, until such time as there is an admission that the sharing and gig economy can (with correct regulation) be a force for good, I'm not going down the road of discussing the ills of uber's offering. To me its a totally disingenous approach to the discussion when that approach means in no way will there be a consideration of an innovation that would canabalise taxi'ing. It's rooted in either self interest or a certain extreme ideology.

Stephen15

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ride sharing (and uber) is being thrown in under taxi regulation...meaning that a taxi driver will run the uber app (in reality).
That's manipulating uber into something it shouldn't ever be.

Well if they feel that's something they shouldn't be then they can leave. If they can't play by the rules then don't play the game at all.

Other than that, until such time as there is an admission that the sharing and gig economy can (with correct regulation) be a force for good, I'm not going down the road of discussing the ills of uber's offering. To me its a totally disingenous approach to the discussion when that approach means in no way will there be a consideration of an innovation that would canabalise taxi'ing. It's rooted in either self interest or a certain extreme ideology.

I can't see how it can be a force of good. The gig economy has always been there it's nothing new but was previously arranged through word of mouth eg. "Ile give you €20 for a lift to the airport" that's basically what Uber is but instead of using word of mouth is organised through an app and once something is organised then it is no longer the gig economy.

Companies like Uber seem to think they are changing the world through their innovation and hence they should be exempt from the law they're not. I have no vested interests apart from the fact I want less people in cars and more using sustainable transport and I want a level playing field.

I believe that Uber is a form of unfair competition for taxi drivers as Uber drivers have lower standards they need to comply with. If Uber was to be legalised in the way it is in the US then taxi should have to lower their standards in order to make it a level playing field.

I actually think we need tougher regulations look at the non-national taxi driver who sexually assaulted 3 women but yet the NTA were going to keep his licence and the Guards had to revoke it. If there were any regulations for Uber they'd be a lot lower than taxis so expect more of the same.

makeorbrake

Stephen15 wrote: »

Well if they feel that's something they shouldn't be then they can leave. If they can't play by the rules then don't play the game at all.

Your attitude and approach to this makes my point for me. Regulation should be such that it encourages innovation not this ^^^^

Stephen15 wrote: »

I can't see how it can be a force of good. The gig economy has always been there it's nothing new but was previously arranged through word of mouth eg. "Ile give you €20 for a lift to the airport" that's basically what Uber is but instead of using word of mouth is organised through an app and once something is organised then it is no longer the gig economy.

That is entirely wrong. You bring the offerer and the offeree together where they otherwise wouldn't find each other. That's powerful. If you can't see the power in that, we really have nothing to discuss.

Stephen15 wrote: »

I believe that Uber is a form of unfair competition for taxi drivers as Uber drivers have lower standards they need to comply with.

Lower standards? If you've been reading through this discussion, a plethora of people have come on here and said, I've used Uber abroad - I liked it and standards were higher (by comparison with an irish taxi).

Stephen15 wrote: »

I actually think we need tougher regulations look at the non-national taxi driver who sexually assaulted 3 women but yet the NTA were going to keep his licence and the Guards had to revoke it. If there were any regulations for Uber they'd be a lot lower than taxis so expect more of the same.

Why would they need to be lower? Nobody here has suggested an unregulated market. What is needed is a progressive, forward thinking pro-innovation regulatory approach.

As regards your suggestion of an 'unfair playing field' - I don't accept that at all. They are not on the same playing field even though one could take customers away from the other. They are entirely different things. If ride sharing is far more competitive simply because of its inherent nature, then so be it. Taxi's are toast and sorry/not sorry - they are retired and people flow into other work opportunities.

OR...we can fudge it over the next god knows how many years whilst other countries and economies gain competitive advantage by embracing the development...and then at that (much) later stage, we accept the reality ..which we should have done on day 1.

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm simply stating a fact, you state opinion, there's a difference.

Wrong (in the sense that nobody - me included - is saying that the ECJ didn't reach the ruling that it did) and wrong.

Deleted User wrote: »

They created an app, it's been copied the world over. Its really nothing special now, several years ago, sure, now, not so much..

So they were the first movers (at any scale) to do so. That's called innovation - and you and your co-travelers one after the other have refused to acknowledge it as such.

Deleted User wrote: »

My point was even my local taxi company has an almost 100%,identical app to the Uber app. The app is not a big deal and doesn't warrant an exception to be made to regulations that set minimum requirements and protect consumers.

So your local taxi company copied Uber? That's symptomatic of (Uber's) innovation.

Other than that, you seem to think that an app is all that is enabled here - which is entirely wrong.

And these regulations that protect consumers? How do they protect consumers when you've been told on here time and time again by people who have experienced Uber/ride sharing abroad that the standard is much higher?

Other than that, there is no 'exception' required here. It's a case of having fit for purpose regulation of something that is NOT taxi-ing.

Deleted User wrote: »

On that basis Uber could start here in a big way tomorrow, literally nothing stopping them except their own intransigence.

Haven't you all told me that it is here?
Remember, they provide the platform. In simple terms, the platform brings offerer and offeree together. Guess what? In this market (with this protectionist, taxi appeasing regulation) - nobody wants to access the service whereas in other markets, ride sharing has wiped taxi-ing out! Go figure.

The regulator has failed consumers. That's the reality.

[Deleted User]

makeorbrake wrote: »

So they were the first movers (at any scale) to do so. That's called innovation - and you and your co-travelers one after the other have refused to acknowledge it as such.
.
.

Just a quick reminder that Uber and Hailo apps were developed at the same time and launched within a few months of each other in 2011.

MyTaxi predated both of them.

makeorbrake

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Just a quick reminder that Uber and Hailo apps were developed at the same time and launched within a few months of each other in 2011.

MyTaxi predated both of them.

And a quick reminder to read the sentence that you quoted. i.e ...

makeorbrake wrote:

So they were the first movers (at any scale) to do so.

[Deleted User]

makeorbrake wrote: »

And these regulations that protect consumers? How do they protect consumers when you've been told on here time and time again by people who have experienced Uber/ride sharing abroad that the standard is much higher?

For one thing, the regulator sets the fare structure and protects the consumer from price gouging or "surge pricing" which is a well known and despised feature of Uber

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

For one thing, the regulator sets the fare structure and protects the consumer from price gouging or "surge pricing" which is a well known and despised feature of Uber

Yes, and yet you'd have to have a regulator that enabled such services in the first instance for that to be a problem. i.e. if - through its actions - there effectively are no drivers on the road under the uber (or any other ) platform, then its not exactly a problem.

Furthermore, if you have a regulator engaged in the work of making innovative services available to consumers - and active competition in the market between such platforms, there will be no concern about surge pricing. Uber don't get my business here - I choose another ride sharing platform. That's competition at work (and uber have had to respond by dropping down such pricing).

Notwithstanding all that, nobody here has suggested that ride sharing services should be unregulated. Quite the opposite. However, they deserve their own regulations - regulations that are fit for purpose.

Spook_ie

makeorbrake wrote: »

Yes, and yet you'd have to have a regulator that enabled such services in the first instance for that to be a problem. i.e. if - through its actions - there effectively are no drivers on the road under the uber (or any other ) platform, then its not exactly a problem.

Furthermore, if you have a regulator engaged in the work of making innovative services available to consumers - and active competition in the market between such platforms, there will be no concern about surge pricing. Uber don't get my business here - I choose another ride sharing platform. That's competition at work (and uber have had to respond by dropping down such pricing).

Notwithstanding all that, nobody here has suggested that ride sharing services should be unregulated. Quite the opposite. However, they deserve their own regulations - regulations that are fit for purpose.

Such as insurance covering for hire and reward, such as Garda Vetting, such as minimum standards on age and size, such as a maximum fares order, any of those you think shouldn't apply to your version of taxiing, because lets not forget that is still what Uber, Lyft etc drivers do, move a person from A to B for reward.

makeorbrake

Spook_ie wrote: »

Such as insurance covering for hire and reward, such as Garda Vetting, such as minimum standards on age and size, such as a maximum fares order, any of those you think shouldn't apply to your version of taxiing,because lets not forget that is still what Uber, Lyft etc drivers do, move a person from A to B for reward.

And lets not forget that nobody here has suggested that the space remains unregulated. Furthermore, on insurance - good point - because the regulator would need to get their finger out of their ass to solve that one.

And all of this amounts to complete REGULATORY FAILURE - because conditions have been nutured here where there are no drivers on the road utilising any ride sharing application.

Spook_ie

makeorbrake wrote: »

And lets not forget that nobody here has suggested that the space remains unregulated. Furthermore, on insurance - good point - because the regulator would need to get their finger out of their ass to solve that one.

And all of this amounts to complete REGULATORY FAILURE - because conditions have been nutured here where there are no drivers on the road utilising any ride sharing application.

Nice swerve, so which if any of the regulations as they are, are unfit for purpose?

makeorbrake

Spook_ie wrote: »

Nice swerve

I'm not sure what that means....do tell.

Spook_ie wrote: »

so which if any of the regulations as they are, are unfit for purpose?

If the regulator has created a situation where there is no ride sharing in Ireland, then that regulator has failed irish consumers. Stymieing innovation is not pro-consumer and it doesn't make for a progressive economy and society. It's as simple as that.

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

On that basis Uber could start here in a big way tomorrow, literally nothing stopping them except their own intransigence.

Uber is a ride-sharing company, not a taxi company.
Uber is not allowed to operate here as a ride-sharing company.

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

For one thing, the regulator sets the fare structure and protects the consumer from price gouging or "surge pricing" which is a well known and despised feature of Uber

The same was said of the Irish airline industry in the 1980's.

LuckyLloyd

And round and round in circles we go...

The highest court in the EU have made their determination and there is no appetite in Irish politics to try and challenge that; or find some other way to bring “ride sharing” into the Irish transport mix. That’s really the end of the practical conversation.

The rest is philosophical / political. The recent era of Silicon Valley “innovation” has enjoyed essential fan boy type behaviour and it’s not hard to see why - a range of “disrupting” products that make the lives of young wealthy professionals better, broader consequences be damned. How to make it easier and cheaper to get around a city without having to endure suckers on a bus or train (or own a car); how to get better more personalised accommodation when on holiday; and a way to get a sandwich and a bottle of coke hand delivered to you when hungover. Hopefully someone is still tackling some real problems and genuinely innovating somewhere else.

But nonetheless, in an increasingly self centric world these products will have devout followers. You cannot change the minds of the devotees. Just as no cheer leader for Uber or AirBnB is ever going to change my mind on a race to the bottom for the value of labour being a bad thing or that we need to prioritise residents in a city over tourists to it.

So we can continue going round in a circular fashion or we can agree to disagree. And you can then choose to reside in a place that fits your outlook. Houston or Singapore or Sydney will give makeorbrake what he wants. Ireland’s robust social provision and worker rights has a strong political consensus behind it that makes me proud and happy to live here. And long may that be the case.

makeorbrake

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

there is no appetite in Irish politics to try and challenge that; or find some other way to bring “ride sharing” into the Irish transport mix.

I agree entirely. I don't believe its right but I agree.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The rest is philosophical / political.

It's certainly ideogical in your case, right?

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The recent era of Silicon Valley “innovation” has enjoyed essential fan boy type behaviour and it’s not hard to see why - a range of “disrupting” products that make the lives of young wealthy professionals better, broader consequences be damned.

You rubbish technological innovation and yet you benefit from it every day of the week and you've just availed of it to write that post.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

a range of “disrupting” products that make the lives of young wealthy professionals better, broader consequences be damned.

Ah, I see. To help wealthy professionals is it? That's why we're going to have people hand over more of their hard earned money to taxi drivers. Makes a lot of sense alright.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

How to make it easier and cheaper to get around a city without having to endure suckers on a bus or train (or own a car);

Suckers on a bus? I use both ride sharing services and buses every day. Some deep seated prejudices being unpacked here!

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

how to get better more personalised accommodation when on holiday; and a way to get a sandwich and a bottle of coke hand delivered to you when hungover.

The hungover bit is a reflection of you and your world view. In Latin America, people use Uber Eats, Rappi and rival services at every level - it's not an exclusive thing.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Hopefully someone is still tackling some real problems and genuinely innovating somewhere else.

The comments of a fool.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

But nonetheless, in an increasingly self centric world these products will have devout followers. You cannot change the minds of the devotees. Just as no cheer leader for Uber or AirBnB is ever going to change my mind on a race to the bottom for the value of labour being a bad thing or that we need to prioritise residents in a city over tourists to it.

How much for a copy of the socialist worker?

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Ireland’s robust social provision and worker rights has a strong political consensus behind it that makes me proud and happy to live here. And long may that be the case.

And yet you trample over consumers rights to allegedly get to this ideal.

markodaly

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

And round and round in circles we go...

The highest court in the EU have made their determination and there is no appetite in Irish politics to try and challenge that; or find some other way to bring “ride sharing” into the Irish transport mix. That’s really the end of the practical conversation.

The rest is philosophical / political. The recent era of Silicon Valley “innovation” has enjoyed essential fan boy type behaviour and it’s not hard to see why - a range of “disrupting” products that make the lives of young wealthy professionals better, broader consequences be damned. How to make it easier and cheaper to get around a city without having to endure suckers on a bus or train (or own a car); how to get better more personalised accommodation when on holiday; and a way to get a sandwich and a bottle of coke hand delivered to you when hungover. Hopefully someone is still tackling some real problems and genuinely innovating somewhere else.

But nonetheless, in an increasingly self centric world these products will have devout followers. You cannot change the minds of the devotees. Just as no cheer leader for Uber or AirBnB is ever going to change my mind on a race to the bottom for the value of labour being a bad thing or that we need to prioritise residents in a city over tourists to it.

So we can continue going round in a circular fashion or we can agree to disagree. And you can then choose to reside in a place that fits your outlook. Houston or Singapore or Sydney will give makeorbrake what he wants. Ireland’s robust social provision and worker rights has a strong political consensus behind it that makes me proud and happy to live here. And long may that be the case.

Yet, in another thread, you will be bemoaning the state of the health service with the EU's youngest population and wondering why we have a housing crisis in one of the least dense EU nations.

These things are not mutually exclusive you know. You want all those 'social provisions' well there is your cost right there. Slow and snail-paced change and inertia costs us all in different ways.

The whole debate about a 'race to the bottom' is a cute soundbite and all but it only tells 5% of the story. The world is changing and it will not be people in the NTA or the taxi industry leading the charge it will be technology companies and the likes of Google evolving self-driving cars, for the next generation to use, getting rid of the need to pay a man to drive you around the place.

It boils down to this anyway on the question of ride-sharing or driving a taxi. Why does the NTA limit the number of taxi licenses and why does one need to spend €6,300 for a vehicle license on top of your tests and insurance, oh and guess what, these licenses are not available right now, so I guess you are $hit out of luck.

This is done at the behest of the existing drivers, which is fine if people want it that way, but lets not kid ourselves its at the behest of the client and consumer.

What I find in Ireland, is that people go mad at the Nanny state like they are an uber American Republican, until of course, the Nanny state benefits them. Then everyone is a closet communist. It's hilarious really, we really are the biggest spoofers going.

[Deleted User]

makeorbrake wrote: »

And a quick reminder to read the sentence that you quoted. i.e ...

"Founded in London in 2011, the Hailo taxi service was available in 16 cities (as of December 2013)."

makeorbrake

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

"Founded in London in 2011, the Hailo taxi service was available in 16 cities (as of December 2013)."

And once again, I refer you back to what I wrote. Uber is the one that is synonymous with ride sharing on a global scale.

[Deleted User]

markodaly wrote: »

It boils down to this anyway on the question of ride-sharing or driving a taxi. Why does the NTA limit the number of taxi licenses and why does one need to spend €6,300 for a vehicle license on top of your tests and insurance, oh and guess what, these licenses are not available right now, so I guess you are $hit out of luck.

This is done at the behest of the existing drivers,

Did you make that up or do you have anything factual to back it up?

[Deleted User]

makeorbrake wrote: »

And once again, I refer you back to what I wrote. Uber is the one that is synonymous with ride sharing on a global scale.

Though interestingly enough - that's not what you wrote - you wrote "(at any scale)" not global, but sure if you keep shifting those goalposts, you'll score eventually.