Spook_ie wrote: » Just as it doesn't suit to call rideshare by a correct name? It's not surge pricing, simply because the prices are set up to 3 or 4 years in advance and not subject to change by the whim of a driver or an app.
Spook_ie wrote: » Just as it doesn't suit to call rideshare by a correct name?
Spook_ie wrote: » It's not surge pricing, simply because the prices are set up to 3 or 4 years in advance and not subject to change by the whim of a driver or an app.
usernamegoes wrote: » It is. It just doesn't suit your self-interest or ideology to call it that.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Except taxis don't - there is a single additional charge for unsocial hours. That's a long way off surge pricing, and it can't be 'gamed' in the way that surge pricing can.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Having unmarked vehicles - 'ordinary cars' - is a security risk. That's one of the reasons why the regulator insisted on the large decals on taxi doors.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » It's the American dream, isn't it - multiple jobs required to survive and keep your head above water.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » There's certainly a segment of Irish taxi drivers that match your description, but you're missing a few other segments. The retired Garda or other white collar worker who does a bit of taxiing in his later years, and of course the recent immigrant to Ireland.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » It's not about a sense of entitlement - it's about having some hope that someone can earn a decent living without working 14 hour days that will have them falling asleep at the wheel, possibly when they're on their other bus driving or truck driving job.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Having more cars on the road more of the time is by no means efficient. It is killing our planet, killing our people and causing more and more congestion. The priority of regulators and legislators should be on enabling sustainable travel options.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Very simple for the tech literate and financial literate - not so very simple for many customers, who will be exposed to paying higher prices.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » How exactly is having more people pumping out pollutants into the atmosphere more of the time 'a benefit to society'?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » A few posts on a boards thread is not exactly a reliable measure of quality. Vehicle decals are required of taxi drivers as a security and quality measure, and you're trying to undermine this, and roll back progress for people with disabilities.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » Motorists come nowhere near paying for the full costs of motorist - the costs of road building and road maintenance, the costs of public space given over to storage of private property, the huge environmental costs of pumping out noxious fumes, tyre particles, brake particles all around us.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » If there would be more cars on the streets, that will kill our planet quicker.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » That's from New Hampshire, right? There are no taxi cartels in Ireland. There are no quantitative limits on the number of taxi drivers in Ireland - just decent standards.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » It's an opinion indeed, and you are absolutely entitled to your opinion. It's also relevant to note that it is based on zero experience with or engagement with the Regulator - so it bears no more value that a belief in God or Santa Claus.
makeorbrake wrote: » BS. How are they facilitated if you make them go out and buy a specific car (WAV) - when they have a car that has passed a road-worthiness test and is otherwise perfectly fine?
n97 mini wrote: » This is it. Having used Uber and Lyft in the US daily for 6 months over a 3 year period, I only met one driver who didn't have another job. She was a stay at home mom whose kids were all at school. The rest were students to blue collar to white collar workers who were trying to boost their income. One guy was doing it so he could buy a boat to take his family on holidays. The profile of Irish taxi drivers is completely different. Anecdotally very few have an education beyond inter cert. They're only working in the taxi industry because they can't get better employment elsewhere. There are no students, blue collar or white collar workers who are part timing it. With that comes an entitlement culture. Taxi drivers are "entitled" to make a living from taxi driving, as they can't make a living doing anything else.
makeorbrake wrote: » So if there's always an expectation that there's going to be more people using it -rather than taxis (given an expectation of increased congestion), then the service is wildly popular then. There's a whole host of ways that could be tackled if there was a will (and it's that will to do anything that's missing). Uber pool for one - that takes cars off the streets. Who's to say licensing couldn't be conditional (provided its progressively so)? Otherwise, licensing could be done in a way to take ride sharing back to the way it was originally intended. Someone a couple of posts above referred to 'non serious players' that would waste everyones time - but that misses the point of ride sharing so much - it's not funny. These are exactly the people that should be enabled. If someone switches on the app on a drive across town or on a long commute into or out of the city, that serves multiple purposes; 1. More efficient use of the existing car fleet 2. The opportunity for the driver to reduce costs or make a modest few quid 3. More transportation options for would-be passengers If anyone was interested, that could all be incentivised (the IF being key there). The same for someone that wanted to work for a couple of hours dynamically. There is great power in that for society and for an economy.
usernamegoes wrote: » So let's agree to drop the issue of surge pricing. Hackneys, Limos, and taxis do it to one extent or another.
makeorbrake wrote: » Very simple. Whip out the phone and try another app. With taxi's, I suppose you'd have to figure it out by experience (which isn't the end of the world if these are journeys you're taking locally/ that you're familiar with). But app is very transparent.
makeorbrake wrote: » Ride sharing (as in actual ride sharing...not necessarily the Uber version of it) has the ability to provide a service at a much cheaper price point. Virtually all on the opposing end to the argument here have said that widespread Uber usage will lead to traffic congestion. That means that more people are accessing such a service - so in that way, it's being a benefit to society (congestion is a bi-product but as per previous posts, there are other ways to tackle that). It means that people can't afford to be using taxi's. So - if there is another means (and that other means doesn't mean any such race to the bottom, etc.) - then it's the way to go.
makeorbrake wrote: » On the standards, we've been over this and we're not going to agree on it. Most people's experience has been better with Uber than with taxis (as per comments posted here). In any event, there is no stumbling block to adherence to standards aside from this WAV situation. That's the one that makes it impossible.
n97 mini wrote: » Motor tax and vrt cover road maintenance, and more.
n97 mini wrote: » Night buses are exactly that. No congestion at night.
makeorbrake wrote: » If there would be more more cars on the streets, its because more people can afford to travel (via ride sharing). It's only taxi's that drive around looking for fares - clogging up the streets.
makeorbrake wrote: » Posted on twitter in the last 24 hours: hxxps://twitter.com/ChrisPacia/status/1145988168799461376 "Seriously **** the government run taxi cartels. Just had two driver cancel on me using their "app" so they could pick up other customers. 45 mins of waiting an still no taxi. They drive Uber out of the city so they can provide this **** service." Another example of the consumer being screwed at the behest of the ideologically wayward and selfish interests.
makeorbrake wrote: » You want me to have the regulator sign a statement to that effect (and even then, you still wouldn't be satisfied). It's my opinion and it's an opinion shared by a number of others here. I don't give a fiddlers if you don't respect that or believe it (or more accurately, your ideology conveniently aligns with not considering it as a possibility...and for others here, their self interest). We can keep going back and forth over these same points or agree to disagree. Whichever you prefer.
Blueshoe wrote: » We don't have Uber in Ireland.
Spook_ie wrote: » It's not surge pricing at all, it's a maximum fare order, it doesn't matter what's happening weather wise, crisis wise or whatever they are the set rates for that time, date and distance. I couldn't for example say to a customer, "It's a wet day and lots of people looking for taxis, it will cost you double" and get away with it if they complained.
n97 mini wrote: » There is surge pricing of sorts. 8pm to 8am Mon-Sat, all day Sunday and bank holidays have higher rates. Christmas and New Years it's higher again. The price per km increases by about 25% when the meter passes 14.5km.
usernamegoes wrote: » I wonder if they maximum fare could be agreed before hand which could take account of traffic etc and if the meter was lower then that's all that would be charged. Obviously this wouldn't accommodate major issues causing huge delays. Is this just tough look for hackney drivers today? That seems unfair. Uber's system seems much fairer.
Spook_ie wrote: » They dont do it by increasing the meter rate as hackneys and limos cant have taximeters in use, legally taxis can't do it at all.
n97 mini wrote: » Hackneys: Must agree the fare to be charged in advance (the fare is not calculated on a taximeter); According to the link above. Uber calculates the fare in advance, so that bit is fine. However if there is any deviation (roadworks, rta en route, passenger asks driver to detour for some reason etc) the journey price will go up in the app. A hackney licence won't permit this. However it's very likely in reality that the passenger would give the driver a few extra bob for their troubles, so it's an unreasonable inflexibility.
Spook_ie wrote: » I stand by they weren't willing to operate a hackney service under the terms and conditions of a hackney because they wanted to calculate the fares by using the GPS function of smart phones as a pseudo taximeter. What were these unreasonable conditions that everyone else is able to work with except for non SPSV qualified people?
usernamegoes wrote: » Exactly, as I wrote: unreasonable conditions. You argued Uber weren't willing to operate a hackney service. Do you stand by that?
Spook_ie wrote: » There were no conditions attached that didn't already apply to hackneys, do you read any of the links I provide, the answers to what are allowed or not in the various classes SPSVs are covered in that link.
usernamegoes wrote: » Uber would have settled to operate their platforms with hackneys, they lobbied for it in fact. Just not with unreasonable conditions. Why is the meter pseudo-? Seems perfectly ordinary meter to me. Would they not be allowed use a meter in a hackney?
Spook_ie wrote: » I've never said there is, but Uber and Lyft don't want to be hackneys/limo's they want to use a pseudo meter to calculate the fares.https://www.nationaltransport.ie/taxi-and-bus-licensing/taxi/spsv-vehicle-licensing/apply-for-an-spsv-vehicle-licence/
usernamegoes wrote: » Dig up. no maximum fare order for hackneys or limos.
Spook_ie wrote: » you want a taxi service for bus fare fares.
n97 mini wrote: » They can all drive 192 Mercs. Doesn't solve the price and driver problems.
Spook_ie wrote: » Would taxis be cheaper , possibly, how would a customer know? maybe he can go back to where he got an Uber then take a Lyft or whatever and then he'll be able to compare the price, or of course he could just stick with plain old maximum fare regulations.
Spook_ie wrote: » Because a metered rate is subject to a maximum fares order, Uber use the GPS on the smartphones as a taximeter, if they set their GPS rates to match the maximum fares order (and find someway to ensure they are calibrated and stay calibrated i.e not some software download that can be installed and removed at will) and then don't charge above the maximum fares order then they'd get far less stick.
Spook_ie wrote: » So you'll never know if the NTA is improving the fleet or not.
n97 mini wrote: » That's the one I won't use. Too expensive, and the quality of the drivers and vehicles is way too variable.
Spook_ie wrote: » Yeah, you can even use an NTA licensed SPSV and know where you stand legally rather than what the management of a company decide.
