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

makeorbrake

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is it really a shock to you to think that someone has has some professional experience in an area might be able to talk more knowledgably about the area than someone who hasn't?

I don't know what you do for living, but let's imagine that we have an in-depth discussion here about whatever you do. Do you really think that I, or any outsider, will be able to contribute with the same depth and value as you, someone who lives this issue for your professional life?

I'm pretty confident that the shoe would be on the other foot if such an unqualified view (sic) supported your world view.

Other than that, there is no need for a PhD in taxi-ometry to hold an informed discussion on the subject.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Restrictions on single occupant cars are almost certainly going to happen, sooner or later, regardless of any taxi changes.

Great. And if that creates sufficent space on our streets, I'm sure you will be the first calling for ride sharing services, right?:rolleyes:

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I've no idea why you'd be expecting me to investigate your proposals. They're your proposals - why don't you investigate them and come up with something concrete?

I didn't suggest you investigate "MY" proposals. I suggested that people could be forthcoming in solving the problem with their own suggestions - aside from blocking ride sharing services.

And everyone who reads through this knows why - because blocking services like uber is in keeping with either self-interest or a certain wayward ideology.

[Deleted User]

makeorbrake wrote: »

Time and again, we've seen attempts by you and others here to try and sully the opinions and views of others in this way (simply because its a point of view that you bitterly detest).

That's what's going on with that.

Is it really a shock to you to think that someone has has some professional experience in an area might be able to talk more knowledgably about the area than someone who hasn't?

I don't know what you do for living, but let's imagine that we have an in-depth discussion here about whatever you do. Do you really think that I, or any outsider, will be able to contribute with the same depth and value as you, someone who lives this issue for your professional life?

makeorbrake wrote: »

Hilarious. That's not at all true. I thought it absurd to even suggest that we can only have one and not the other. Yet, when pressed, I presented relevant options that would solve that. Key amongst them? The consideration that if this is what people want, we get every self-interested taxi-man off the roads. That will certainly clear some road space.

The madness of it? To consider that something will add so much more value that by your own admission, it will increase traffic on the streets as a side effect. That means it would be enabling far more people. That admission from your side of the discussion shows that all this nonsense that was talked about - about professional drivers and better standards is complete and utter nonsense.

As regards additional traffic, of course there are ways to tackle that. Pooling could be incentivised. The ability of anyone to drive into the city at rush hour as a single occupant (across the board) could be penalised. That's just off the top of my head.

The fact is that you (and others here) don't even want to investigate such options either out of self interest or ideological reasons.

Restrictions on single occupant cars are almost certainly going to happen, sooner or later, regardless of any taxi changes. I've no idea why you'd be expecting me to investigate your proposals. They're your proposals - why don't you investigate them and come up with something concrete?

makeorbrake wrote: »

complete and utter nonsense.

Oh well, that's me told I suppose.

makeorbrake

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What do you want precisely? My LinkedIn page?

Of course you're not going to get precise details on an anonymous forum. I did have dealings with the regulator and with taxi drivers for a couple of years some years back.

Time and again, we've seen attempts by you and others here to try and sully the opinions and views of others in this way (simply because its a point of view that you bitterly detest).

That's what's going on with that.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Or more accurately, YOU can find no way where both ride sharing and WAVs can be accommodated, without resulting increased traffic/emissions and reducing safety for passengers.

Hilarious. That's not at all true. I thought it absurd to even suggest that we can only have one and not the other. Yet, when pressed, I presented relevant options that would solve that. Key amongst them? The consideration that if this is what people want, we get every self-interested taxi-man off the roads. That will certainly clear some road space.

The madness of it? To consider that something will add so much more value that by your own admission, it will increase traffic on the streets as a side effect. That means it would be enabling far more people. That admission from your side of the discussion shows that all this nonsense that was talked about - about professional drivers and better standards is complete and utter nonsense.

As regards additional traffic, of course there are ways to tackle that. Pooling could be incentivised. The ability of anyone to drive into the city at rush hour as a single occupant (across the board) could be penalised. That's just off the top of my head.

The fact is that you (and others here) don't even want to investigate such options either out of self interest or ideological reasons.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Sure I'm only morto over my strange habit of taking words at their meaning.

And once again, you shift the goalposts to another scenario.

complete and utter nonsense.

[Deleted User]

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ok, and your professional experience here is what precisely?

What do you want precisely? My LinkedIn page?

Of course you're not going to get precise details on an anonymous forum. I did have dealings with the regulator and with taxi drivers for a couple of years some years back.

makeorbrake wrote: »

And you can find no way where both ride sharing and WAV's can be accommodated?

Or more accurately, YOU can find no way where both ride sharing and WAVs can be accommodated, without resulting increased traffic/emissions and reducing safety for passengers.

makeorbrake wrote: »

How embarrassing for you....and also embarrassing for you

Sure I'm only morto over my strange habit of taking words at their meaning.

makeorbrake wrote: »

contest the reality that Uber is synonymous with ride sharing the world over.

And once again, you shift the goalposts to another scenario.

makeorbrake

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Indeed, he is entitled to his opinion. It's apparent that those who share that very same opinion have no professional experience of
a) the Regulator
b) taxi drivers.

Ok, and your professional experience here is what precisely?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

To ensure that wheelchair users have some small chance of getting a taxi to work, or to their concert or to their job interview.

And you can find no way where both ride sharing and WAV's can be accommodated? (or more accurately, you don't want there to be such an accommodation what with your ideological views).

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It certainly never occurred to me that 'any scale' = 'global'.

How embarrassing for you....and also embarrassing for you that you'd try and contest the reality that Uber is synonymous with ride sharing the world over.

[Deleted User]

makeorbrake wrote: »

It's his opinion - which he's more than entitled to have. I also believe that the regulator is appeasing taxi drivers - and there are others here who share that very same opinion.

Indeed, he is entitled to his opinion. It's apparent that those who share that very same opinion have no professional experience of
a) the Regulator
b) taxi drivers.

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.

To ensure that wheelchair users have some small chance of getting a taxi to work, or to their concert or to their job interview.

makeorbrake wrote: »

And if you keep engaging in semantics, that will really add to the quality of the discussion...NOT.

Did it ever occur to you that 'global' would implicate 'scale'?

It certainly never occurred to me that 'any scale' = 'global'.

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

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

It's his opinion - which he's more than entitled to have. I also believe that the regulator is appeasing taxi drivers - and there are others here who share that very same opinion.

Your utterances here are not doing much to change that opinion - quite the opposite with the siege mentality.

makeorbrake

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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.

And if you keep engaging in semantics, that will really add to the quality of the discussion...NOT.

Did it ever occur to you that 'global' would implicate 'scale'? :rolleyes:

[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.

[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?

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]

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)."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: »

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: »

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

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.

[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

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: »

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

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.

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.

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: »

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: »

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.