Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Uber

Options
1…3132343637…45

Comments

  • Options
    #992
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,699 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    makeorbrake wrote: »
    From the sublime to the ridiculous. Firstly, we're not talking about taxis. We're talking about ride sharing. Secondly, the passenger has the drivers name and the make/model/registration no. of the car. Where is the security risk?
    The security risk arises from allowing any car/driver to ply for hire with minimal effort and few checks beforehand. The decal makes sure that the taxi is a registered taxi.
    makeorbrake wrote: »
    Students and a guy buying a boat were the examples he gave. I guess the second guy would be 'keeping his head above water' alright.
    Sure, and you actually believe these stories? Just like other people who sell personal services for money, telling the truth to your client isn't generally conducive to getting repeat business. Do students here actually have cars now anyway? The original ride-sharing theory (well I was going that way anyway) was a nice theory, but it never seems to happen in practice. Or it never seems to happen often enough to make it a significant part of the service.
    makeorbrake wrote: »
    The former could work until 67 like the rest of us - that would solve that problem. The latter was hardly welcomed into the taxi industry - but is dynamic enough to adapt to a reality and go out and work at something else.
    Eh, he is working, but it's not really surprising that you expect people to be wage slaves into their dotage - all part of the capitalist dream.
    makeorbrake wrote: »
    If it's actual ride sharing as it was originally intended, then we're not talking about 14 hour days. And other than that, it is entitlement and an unwillingness to change. If someone is displaced within an industry they need to look to opportunities elsewhere.
    Yeah, it was a 10 hour day on his bus/coach driving job, and now it's a few more hours ride-sharing as we've pushed wages so far down that no-one can expect to survive on a normal working day.
    makeorbrake wrote: »
    Plenty of ways that can be tackled. Wouldn't Uber Pool lead to less cars on the road?
    WHy Uber Pool? Why not just 'pool'? If pooling is a good thing, then let's do pooling. We don't need Uber for that.
    makeorbrake wrote: »
    If Taxis are cheaper then whats the concern? If people would still use Uber in these circumstances, there must be other reasons like ease of use and service.
    The concern is more cars on the road, more of the time. In case you haven't noticed, the fumes are killing us; https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2019/0708/1060952-nitrogen-oxide/
    makeorbrake wrote: »
    No worries - then just ban it. It can be regulated out without regulating out ride sharing. There's no deal-breaker here.
    It's one of many concerns.
    makeorbrake wrote: »
    If people are so enamoured with the service and are otherwise facilitated as they simply couldn't afford to use taxis to the same extent, then that's a plus for society.
    How exactly is more people using taxis a plus for society? It's going to make congestion worse, emissions worse, traffic worse, health of the nation worse. Where's the plus?
    makeorbrake wrote: »
    On the feedback of others here - and the social feedback of those that ride share every day of the week, I disagree that it's not a significant measure of quality.
    Self selecting feedback is completely worthless as a measure of service quality.
    makeorbrake wrote: »
    On vehicle decals, these are not taxi's first and foremost. If you want decals for taxis, have at it. Has nothing to do with ride sharing. Ride sharing is far more secure as the ride sharer knows in advance the name of the driver and the make/model/registration number of the car that's going to be picking them up. On the disabilities front, you're consistently hiding behind that issue. There is no reason why both can't be enabled and facilitated - not just one or one at a cost to the other.
    You can keep saying that there is 'no reason' that people with disabilities can't be facilitated, but you've still no solution to offer. You might as well keep saying that the sun is going to shine in September. It's an act of faith.
    makeorbrake wrote: »
    Other than that, if a ride share driver switches on the app on his commute or on a journey he would take anyway, that's a more efficient use of the road infrastructure and car fleet that could and should be encouraged.
    We can do car pooling today. There's a number of online services for this already. We don't need Uber for this.
    makeorbrake wrote: »
    So you keep saying. And as I have pointed out, that can be tackled in a number of ways.
    Yes, and we need to tackle the existing level of congestion using all those numbers of ways, without making it worse before it gets better. The fumes are killing us.
    makeorbrake wrote: »

    This nonsense again. You try and sully any opinion or point of view based on this nonsense - and it doesn't stand up. Other than that, I have extensive knowledge of ride sharing services overseas and have had the opportunity to see the opportunity it can bring. But I guess we can conveniently ignore that aspect of things as it doesn't fit your world view.
    No, not true. I don't sully 'any opinion or point of view'. I sully your specific claim about the motivation of the regulator for introducing the WAV requirement, given that you have never had any engagement with or knowledge of the regulator, or of the extensive history of this particular issue. You've just made up an idealogical claim to suit your story without any factual base.
    You may well have extensive knowledge of ride sharing, whether as a customer or as a professional in the sector. I've never questioned your knowledge of ride sharing. I'm happy to confirm that I know relatively little about ride sharing.
    I'm also happy to confirm that you know nothing about the motivation of the regulator for introducing the WAV requirement.


  • Options
    #993
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    usernamegoes wrote: »
    No one I have seen post here has objected to reasonable regulation which may include a requirement to register for a licence without unreasonable barriers.

    Certainly no one has advocated for uninsured trips.

    So you agree then, that Uber and yourselves want to reduce the regulations, for what end would the regulations need reducing and by how much?

    (Edit...) BTW I said under insured not uninsured ( end of edit... )


  • Options
    #994
    makeorbrake
    Registered Users Posts: 4,664 ✭✭✭makeorbrake


    end of the road wrote: »
    the concern is about not bringing us back 10 years. which you want to do.
    Eh no - it's you that wants to keep it in the dark ages.
    end of the road wrote: »
    taxiing won't be toast, but the industry we have strived for and have mostly got will be dragged back by years.
    If ridesharing was allowed to flourish, taxi'ing would be toast. You don't agree and that's fine - we agree to disagree. The dragging back years thing...no...it's a case of HOLDING back years either through self interest or wayward ideology.
    end of the road wrote: »
    so be it.
    there are psvs and there are regulations. they do the same thing.
    Eh, no they don't. They don't make use of the existing car fleet. They don't empower people to work dynamically and participate in the sharing economy. What you're proposing (protectionism) is backward.
    end of the road wrote: »
    if it takes someone from a to b for a fare in return it is a taxi.
    pooling is pooling however it is done.
    I disagree. It can also be ride sharing. Furthermore pooling is pooling except where its NOT being done. Pooling dynamically via an app is pooling on steroids.
    end of the road wrote: »
    uber don't need to sling their hook. we just don't need to remove regulations to favour them over others.
    When in reality, ride sharing is being BLOCKED in favour of others (taxis).
    end of the road wrote: »
    if it is happening then it is happeniing. whether done via an ap or not.
    i have pooled with strangers when heading in the same direction, ironically suggested by the taxi driver. pooling however it is done is serious.
    See above. That's nonsense. Technology can play a part in taking pooling up a couple of levels - to an extent that it's being done the whole time. You were all so concerned about the environment - here's an opportunity to do something about it.
    end of the road wrote: »
    It isn't. it is a regulated industry who's components do not fit the definition of cartel.
    The existence of a regulator (even one not doing their job) doesn't mean that the taxi lobby doesn't equal a cartel.
    end of the road wrote: »
    nope. what is being killed in ireland is any old car turning up to operate a psv. we had that and it didn't work.
    Uber tends to have higher standards re. cars - with an age limit. The only regulation that is being objected to are the ones that block ride sharing (i.e. the WAV requirement).
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    The security risk arises from allowing any car/driver to ply for hire with minimal effort and few checks beforehand. The decal makes sure that the taxi is a registered taxi.
    On the checks - of course, the checks should be done across the board. It should be a pre-requisite. Are you suggesting that certain drivers could be checked and certain drivers we'd be incapable of checking? That's nonsense.

    The decal is also nonsense. I already told you - when a ride sharing car arrives, you already have the drivers name, make/model of car and the car registration. There is MORE protection built into that approach than the one you outline.
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Sure, and you actually believe these stories? Just like other people who sell personal services for money, telling the truth to your client isn't generally conducive to getting repeat business. Do students here actually have cars now anyway? The original ride-sharing theory (well I was going that way anyway) was a nice theory, but it never seems to happen in practice. Or it never seems to happen often enough to make it a significant part of the service.
    Oh give me a break! What reason did they have to lie to the guy? I've also experienced the very same down here. You want to tell me the very detailed conversation that ensued re. their studies were all contrived? Who are you fibbing to - because I'm not buyin' what yer sellin' here.

    As regards you being interested in ride sharing as it was originally intended, first I've heard of it.
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Eh, he is working, but it's not really surprising that you expect people to be wage slaves into their dotage - all part of the capitalist dream.
    Remarkable. So they raised the retirement age for everyone because we couldn't afford the overhead and yet we have this one group that we all have to carry in retirement years earlier - and now you claim I'm the capitalist and you (presumably) are the socialist? Listen to yourself.
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Yeah, it was a 10 hour day on his bus/coach driving job, and now it's a few more hours ride-sharing as we've pushed wages so far down that no-one can expect to survive on a normal working day.
    Yeah, here comes the wayward ideology - and it's wayward because this is not what its about. Can a student go out and work for a couple of hours? Can someone switch on the app on a very long commute in and out of the city? But still with your wayward ideology.
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    WHy Uber Pool? Why not just 'pool'? If pooling is a good thing, then let's do pooling. We don't need Uber for that.
    Well said. So where is it? Someone posted a link to some trial that was being proposed - but it's as clear as night and day its reactive (to be seen to do something and keep that good old protectionism going). There is no fully promoted version of Uber pool in operation in Ireland.
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    The concern is more cars on the road, more of the time. In case you haven't noticed, the fumes are killing us;
    Right. A couple of things. Actual pooling - not this anecdotal nonsense. Second - Uber is obviously assisting people in terms of mobility - if it ends up with more people on the road - that's a societal benefit and any societal beneift needs to be weighed up against the drawbacks.
    Why not call for no single occupancy in cars - period? I guess that wouldn't suit your objective, right.
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    It's one of many concerns.
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    How exactly is more people using taxis a plus for society? It's going to make congestion worse, emissions worse, traffic worse, health of the nation worse. Where's the plus?
    See above - and maybe - just maybe - open your mind to other measures that could be taken.

    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Self selecting feedback is completely worthless as a measure of service quality.
    Really? :D Believe what you want but don't expect others to buy what you're selling.
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    You can keep saying that there is 'no reason' that people with disabilities can't be facilitated, but you've still no solution to offer. You might as well keep saying that the sun is going to shine in September. It's an act of faith.

    Yeah, try to keep up. Go read back - you'll see that I did provide rationale as to how it can be achieved.
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    We can do car pooling today. There's a number of online services for this already. We don't need Uber for this.
    You need an app to really derive the benefit of it. Any movement to that has been reactionary - and even then, it's just for show as it's not being done in real terms.
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Yes, and we need to tackle the existing level of congestion using all those numbers of ways, without making it worse before it gets better. The fumes are killing us.

    Asked and answered a gazillion times already. There is no substance to your assertion.
    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    No, not true. I don't sully 'any opinion or point of view'. I sully your specific claim about the motivation of the regulator for introducing the WAV requirement, given that you have never had any engagement with or knowledge of the regulator, or of the extensive history of this particular issue. You've just made up an idealogical claim to suit your story without any factual base.
    You may well have extensive knowledge of ride sharing, whether as a customer or as a professional in the sector. I've never questioned your knowledge of ride sharing. I'm happy to confirm that I know relatively little about ride sharing.
    I'm also happy to confirm that you know nothing about the motivation of the regulator for introducing the WAV requirement.

    False. All of it.


  • Options
    #995
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    makeorbrake wrote: »
    <snipped>
    The decal is also nonsense. I already told you - when a ride sharing car arrives, you already have the drivers name, make/model of car and the car registration. There is MORE protection built into that approach than the one you outline.


    <snipped>


    Perhaps you might enlighten me then as to why as a MyTaxi/FreeNow driver that many times the customer whose call has gone through the app comes out and gets into a different cab, the app gives a roof sign number, which consists of five 15cm high digits on a yellow background, a registration number, make and color of vehicle and a photograph of the driver and their 5 alpha numeric driver ID number and they still can't tell which taxi they should be getting into?


    EDIT.. Here you go, just so people can get into an Uber car without checking the app etc.

    http://t.uber.com/printdecal

    END EDIT


  • Options
    #996
    makeorbrake
    Registered Users Posts: 4,664 ✭✭✭makeorbrake


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Perhaps you might enlighten me then as to why as a MyTaxi/FreeNow driver that many times the customer whose call has gone through the app comes out and gets into a different cab, the app gives a roof sign number, which consists of five 15cm high digits on a yellow background, a registration number, make and color of vehicle and a photograph of the driver and their 5 alpha numeric driver ID number and they still can't tell which taxi they should be getting into?

    Because its a crap app designed for taxis?

    I've never encountered this circumstance that you're talking about - never. That's with use of 4 ride sharing platforms.
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    EDIT.. Here you go, just so people can get into an Uber car without checking the app etc.
    http://t.uber.com/printdecal
    Don't be ridiculous. If you're using the app, you're using the app. There's no earthly reason to go analog again.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #997
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    makeorbrake wrote: »
    Because its a crap app designed for taxis?

    I've never encountered this circumstance that you're talking about - never. That's with use of 4 ride sharing platforms.


    Don't be ridiculous. If you're using the app, you're using the app. There's no earthly reason to go analog again.

    No it's because we work with real people, people who can't work apps, people who've been drinking, people who can't be bothered etc. The ONLY advantage Uber has is you must use a credit card which means if someone gets into the wrong vehicle the driver isn't going to get paid and will as likely be thrown out as soon as the driver realises or gets a call from an irate customer looking for their car!

    The UBER sign is a requisite of Uber, that's where I got the link from. So maybe Uber are more analog than you think?


  • Options
    #998
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    You can try to brush things under the mat by saying they've never happened to you but the papers say otherwise

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/us/fake-uber-driver-assaults.html
    Harry Campbell, a driver for Uber and Lyft who hosts a podcast called The Rideshare Guy, said it was common for people to hop into the wrong car in the crush outside bars, airports, games or concerts, where hundreds of people are jostling for their cars.

    “These sorts of mistakes are happening all the time,” Mr. Campbell said. “But there are some bad actors who realize this and take advantage.”

    It is not hard to fake, safety experts and law enforcement authorities said.

    Knockoff decals and light-up signs saying “Uber” and “Lyft” are easy to buy from major online retailers. Impostors trawl night spots when people have often been drinking and are particularly vulnerable, as they part with friends for the evening and search the dark for an unfamiliar car.
    https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a27700556/lili-reinhart-fake-uber-driver-twitter-story/
    The Riverdale actress took to Twitter to recount her experience, and it might sound uncomfortably familiar to some. She tweeted, “PSA: I was just ushered to a car by someone posing to be an airport cab/Uber driver.” Lili said she thought it was her driver, so she walked toward his car with him but soon after realized he wasn’t who he said he was. She continued, “I got to his car and there were absolutely no signs that he was a professional service driver.”
    https://www.today.com/money/fake-uber-drivers-are-out-there-here-s-how-avoid-t126919
    To show just how easy it is for Uber imposters to target you, TODAY parked outside popular bars and restaurants in the Los Angeles area late at night last year in a car with a fake Uber logo. Cameras in the car captured the revealing results.

    Link in article doesn't seem to work but here's a link to you tube
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p0jbS1Bn2s


  • Options
    #999
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    Interesting program from ABC Australia, fortunately the Irish regulator didn't kowtow to Uber, even when they said Limerick investment depended on being allowed.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiWZjN0B0h0


  • Options
    #1000
    makeorbrake
    Registered Users Posts: 4,664 ✭✭✭makeorbrake


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    No it's because we work with real people, people who can't work apps, people who've been drinking, people who can't be bothered etc. The ONLY advantage Uber has is you must use a credit card which means if someone gets into the wrong vehicle the driver isn't going to get paid and will as likely be thrown out as soon as the driver realises or gets a call from an irate customer looking for their car!

    The UBER sign is a requisite of Uber, that's where I got the link from. So maybe Uber are more analog than you think?
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    You can try to brush things under the mat by saying they've never happened to you but the papers say otherwise

    Would you ever get out of it with your nonsense! Time and time again, we've had people scraping the bottom of the barrel on this thread out of self interest and bonkers ideology in scrambling a defence of a line of work that is primed for disruption.

    Yes, there may be people who can't use an app. The vast majority of people can. As regards people who are drunk, they may not be capable of all manner of things!

    For normal people, the reg / make / model / drivers name is on the app when you order the car. You can come back again on this - but to the vast majority of people you're not going to come across as credible in pursuing this line.

    As regards Uber using a decal - that must vary by market. However, if you remember back, this discussion arose when someone said that having a decal (as taxi's do) meant that taxi's are more secure. So if you are now saying that Uber has decals, are you making my point for me then? Because my point is that Taxi's dont have ANY such advantage over Uber in terms of security.


  • Options
    #1001
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    makeorbrake wrote: »
    Would you ever get out of it with your nonsense! Time and time again, we've had people scraping the bottom of the barrel on this thread out of self interest and bonkers ideology in scrambling a defence of a line of work that is primed for disruption.

    Yes, there may be people who can't use an app. The vast majority of people can. As regards people who are drunk, they may not be capable of all manner of things!

    For normal people, the reg / make / model / drivers name is on the app when you order the car. You can come back again on this - but to the vast majority of people you're not going to come across as credible in pursuing this line.

    As regards Uber using a decal - that must vary by market. However, if you remember back, this discussion arose when someone said that having a decal (as taxi's do) meant that taxi's are more secure. So if you are now saying that Uber has decals, are you making my point for me then? Because my point is that Taxi's dont have ANY such advantage over Uber in terms of security.

    You can't print out a taxi decal and slap it on the side of your car, you would need to go to an official supplier who has then to check with the NTA that you have a current license, it requires a 5 digit number printed on it which has to match both the roof sign and the disks in the front and rear windows, if that's making some kind of point for you, well then yeah. I suppose you could go to some illicit print shop and get it done, steal a roofsign and forge some id disks but would seem far easier to print an A4 sheet on your pc printer.

    You really haven't much idea of how real people think and work in the real world.

    Edit.. I suggest you watch the Today video and watch some real world interactions with a vehicle with a homemade Uber sticker ..End Edit


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1002
    makeorbrake
    Registered Users Posts: 4,664 ✭✭✭makeorbrake


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    You can't print out a taxi decal and slap it on the side of your car, you would need to go to an official supplier who has then to check with the NTA that you have a current license, it requires a 5 digit number printed on it which has to match both the roof sign and the disks in the front and rear windows, if that's making some kind of point for you, well then yeah. I suppose you could go to some illicit print shop and get it done, steal a roofsign and forge some id disks but would seem far easier to print an A4 sheet on your pc printer.
    It's not necessary. You suggest that it is and that its a security feature that trumps ride sharing. I don't. We can go round in circles as long as you want but we won't be agreeing on that.
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    You really haven't much idea of how real people think and work in the real world.
    Right. That's what you pay for when you sit into a taxi, right?:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #1003
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    makeorbrake wrote: »
    It's not necessary. You suggest that it is and that its a security feature that trumps ride sharing. I don't. We can go round in circles as long as you want but we won't be agreeing on that.


    Right. That's what you pay for when you sit into a taxi, right?:rolleyes:

    No thats just an observation of you and your style of debate and apparent real world experience. You can have that without paying.


  • Options
    #1004
    makeorbrake
    Registered Users Posts: 4,664 ✭✭✭makeorbrake


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    No thats just an observation of you and your style of debate and apparent real world experience. You can have that without paying.

    Why thank you. And yet you all discuss Uber and ridesharing and it seems none of you use it - yet you're the learned one. Every day's a school day

    :D


  • Options
    #1005
    usernamegoes
    Registered Users Posts: 901 ✭✭✭usernamegoes


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    So you agree then, that Uber and yourselves want to reduce the regulations, for what end would the regulations need reducing and by how much?

    (Edit...) BTW I said under insured not uninsured ( end of edit... )

    Those of us not affected by having skin-in-the-game or warped ideology are advocating for a ride-sharing regulation that would have appropriate regulation that is not an artificial barrier to entry to appease a taxi lobby and keep a cushy number in the regulator's office.

    No one has argued for under-insurance either. Can you describe what kind of under-insurance you think there my be by allowing ride-sharing and we can address that.


  • Options
    #1006
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,027 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    usernamegoes wrote: »
    Those of us not affected by having skin-in-the-game or warped ideology are advocating for a ride-sharing regulation that would have appropriate regulation that is not an artificial barrier to entry to appease a taxi lobby and keep a cushy number in the regulator's office.

    No one has argued for under-insurance either. Can you describe what kind of under-insurance you think there my be by allowing ride-sharing and we can address that.

    the type of regulation you are arguing for is what we have.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #1007
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    end of the road wrote: »
    the type of regulation you are arguing for is what we have.

    Of course it's not what they want, they can't say what they want because they don't know them selves, just that they want "IT", whatever it is.

    As far as I can see, Username just wants removal of WAV and makenbrake doesn't know what it is but it must have a solution somewhere, somehow. Not sure about N97 maybe he'll come back and tell us what "it" is that he wants.


  • Options
    #1008
    makeorbrake
    Registered Users Posts: 4,664 ✭✭✭makeorbrake


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Of course it's not what they want, they can't say what they want because they don't know them selves, just that they want "IT", whatever it is.

    As far as I can see, Username just wants removal of WAV and makenbrake doesn't know what it is but it must have a solution somewhere, somehow. Not sure about N97 maybe he'll come back and tell us what "it" is that he wants.

    This is what your power of 'discussion' amounts to. How sad.

    Let me assist you as you're clearly struggling.

    - I want the regulatory conditions for ride sharing services to be enabled - such that irish consumers have access to such services. And NO, those conditions are not in place and NO, it doesn't involve an unlevel playing field as taxi'ing is not ride sharing. That means that another approach has to be taken on the WAV issue. As regards how, I've already discussed that - go back and read it - but you won't be able to claim the 'somewhere, somehow' routine and maintain any credibility.

    That saucy enough for ye ? :p


  • Options
    #1009
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    makeorbrake wrote: »
    This is what your power of 'discussion' amounts to. How sad.

    Let me assist you as you're clearly struggling.

    - I want the regulatory conditions for ride sharing services to be enabled - such that irish consumers have access to such services. And NO, those conditions are not in place and NO, it doesn't involve an unlevel playing field as taxi'ing is not ride sharing. That means that another approach has to be taken on the WAV issue. As regards how, I've already discussed that - go back and read it - but you won't be able to claim the 'somewhere, somehow' routine and maintain any credibility.

    That saucy enough for ye ? :p

    And yet so many posts later you still haven't come up with anything other than the mantra of "allow ridesharing" with no input as to how they should allow ridesharing.
    makeorbrake wrote: »
    Ok, fine. Various incentives can be offered by the state to induce more WAV's onto the streets in terms of public transport. That can be done in the context of separate regulation/licensing of Taxi's and ride sharing. Such incentives do not necessitate the stunting of the development of ride sharing in Ireland.

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

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

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

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

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


  • Options
    #1010
    makeorbrake
    Registered Users Posts: 4,664 ✭✭✭makeorbrake


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    And yet so many posts later you still haven't come up with anything other than the mantra of "allow ridesharing" with no input as to how they should allow ridesharing.

    Firstly, you were wrong in your pen ultimate post - just as you're wrong right now. The very first part of this is to take the blatant protectionist measures out of the way. This 'discussion' has not evolved to a level whereby there's even any point in discussing the finer points of implementation.

    I'm quite happy to do that - but I'm not going to engage on that level with people who are hell bent on blocking ANY form of ride sharing (not taxi-ing).

    Afterall, I didn't come here with skin in the game / self interest / wayward ideology as baggage.


  • Options
    #1011
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    makeorbrake wrote: »
    Firstly, you were wrong in your pen ultimate post - just as you're wrong right now. The very first part of this is to take the blatant protectionist measures out of the way. This 'discussion' has not evolved to a level whereby there's even any point in discussing the finer points of implementation.

    I'm quite happy to do that - but I'm not going to engage on that level with people who are hell bent on blocking ANY form of ride sharing (not taxi-ing).

    Afterall, I didn't come here with skin in the game / self interest / wayward ideology as baggage.


    Put up a reasoned argument then instead of your "We have to regulate for ridesharing" when ridesharing is already regulated for.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1012
    makeorbrake
    Registered Users Posts: 4,664 ✭✭✭makeorbrake


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Put up a reasoned argument then instead of your "We have to regulate for ridesharing" when ridesharing is already regulated for.

    My reaction to that statement is that it is completely inaccurate in its formation. I've diligently put forward a reasoned argument. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't align with your world view.

    Countless times I've pointed out that ridesharing and taxi-ing are NOT one and the same thing. You don't agree - then that's fine. We can agree to disagree but that's where it ends.


  • Options
    #1013
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    makeorbrake wrote: »
    My reaction to that statement is that it is completely inaccurate in its formation. I've diligently put forward a reasoned argument. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't align with your world view.

    Countless times I've pointed out that ridesharing and taxi-ing are NOT one and the same thing. You don't agree - then that's fine. We can agree to disagree but that's where it ends.

    Rideshare is public transport, in that it transports paying members of the public from A to B, the NTA regulate all public transport, if Uber want to work in Ireland they work to the NTA public transport regulations with regard to the class of vehicle be that a limousine, a hackney or a taxi.

    At the end of the day, which is more likely to have customer interests at heart, a public body answerable to the government (and thereby the people it serves ) or a profit driven company who answer only to their shareholders over a profit or loss?


  • Options
    #1014
    makeorbrake
    Registered Users Posts: 4,664 ✭✭✭makeorbrake


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    Rideshare is public transport, in that it transports paying members of the public from A to B, the NTA regulate all public transport, if Uber want to work in Ireland they work to the NTA public transport regulations with regard to the class of vehicle be that a limousine, a hackney or a taxi.
    And as often happens with regulations, they need to be updated to account for technological development - and that can also mean the creation of a separate regulation. You want them lumped in (and otherwise ignored) as it suits your purposes and viewpoint.
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    At the end of the day, which is more likely to have customer interests at heart, a public body answerable to the government (and thereby the people it serves ) or a profit driven company who answer only to their shareholders over a profit or loss?

    Hmm...I guess that's why I suggested that the regulator needs to do their job - quit the protectionism and apply regulation that is pro innovation. I'm not aware of anyone here who has argued for NO regulation whatsoever.

    There are more stakeholders here than just users of ride sharing services. There are the would-be drivers - and society as a whole. You might bear that in mind in your considerations.


  • Options
    #1015
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,237 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    There is clearly no technological development here that would demand an update of regulation. The Uber app behaves the same as the FreeNow app (formerly MyTaxi) and the “rideshare” service is the same as a taxi.

    Most crucially, the Uber app itself operates here in Dublin the same as it does in San Francisco, which proves there is no technological reason for them to be treated differently by the regulator.


  • Options
    #1016
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    makeorbrake wrote: »
    And as often happens with regulations, they need to be updated to account for technological development - and that can also mean the creation of a separate regulation. You want them lumped in (and otherwise ignored) as it suits your purposes and viewpoint.
    There is no technological development other than how a customer requests a ride. Fulfilling that ride isn't technological advancement.
    Hmm...I guess that's why I suggested that the regulator needs to do their job - quit the protectionism and apply regulation that is pro innovation. I'm not aware of anyone here who has argued for NO regulation whatsoever.

    There are more stakeholders here than just users of ride sharing services. There are the would-be drivers - and society as a whole. You might bear that in mind in your considerations.

    I already have and there is no reason to allow people to use their own cars with minimal regulations.

    Let's try a different approach.

    Does a driver require commercial or hire and reward insurance. Yes/No

    Does a vehicle require a current NCT at all times. Yes/No

    Does a vehicle require registering to ensure it meets with size limits. Yes/No

    Does a vehicle require perodic inspection to ensure it's fit for purpose and not modified in a way contarary to its registration to carry passengers. Yes/No

    Does a vehicle require mandatory signage to identify it to people easily Yes/No

    Does a driver require a background check. Yes/No

    If a background check is required should it include driving offences. Yes/No

    Should a driver be limited to areas specific to where he knows or lives and works Yes/No

    Should a driver be able to work anywhere because of SatNav Yes/No

    Should a driver undergo peridocical medicals/ health checks. Yes/No

    Should a driver be required to register with revenue that they have a 2nd source of income Yes/No

    Should a driver be required to be tax compliant at all times. Yes/No

    Should a driver have to notify a regulatory body of the vehicle they are driving Yes/No

    They'll do to be going on with I'm sure there's probably more that deeper reflection will throw up.


  • Options
    #1017
    makeorbrake
    Registered Users Posts: 4,664 ✭✭✭makeorbrake


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    There is clearly no technological development here that would demand an update of regulation. The Uber app behaves the same as the FreeNow app (formerly MyTaxi) and the “rideshare” service is the same as a taxi.
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    There is no technological development other than how a customer requests a ride. Fulfilling that ride isn't technological advancement.

    You want to go back over this and rake through it one more time when it's clear we don't agree...fine.

    See previous posts. Experts on innovation have flagged Uber as being innovative.

    - You can squeal all you want but the arrival of the use of apps has been innovative. You can claim that the taxi industry brought this in. It was brought in by tech companies.
    That taxi companies followed - is a clear indication that that in isolation was innovative.

    Secondly that there is no other innovation other than the app is to misunderstand the whole concept - and that misunderstanding (whether feigned or real....and probably both on this thread by various posters) mean's your missing the whole point.

    Look up "innovation" and the "sharing economy". If you don't understand what the 'sharing economy' is and how it has been enabled, then we have nothing to talk about (aside from the fact that you're just plain wrong).

    Additionally, many here seem to be unable to grasp that this goes far beyond the person seeking a car/lift in terms of innovation. Enabling the ability of people to use their own cars - and potentially to participate in that sharing economy by switching on the app when they're driving a long commute or other journey is powerful. It means a far greater efficiency in how we use our existing car fleet. It means both parties to that journey can achieve greater efficiency in that they both save $ - and they can do so without there being a fall off in quality/service....quite the opposite.

    The app is central to the offering - but that isn't the only aspect of it.

    You want to keep your heads in the sand - go right ahead. Its truly backward but go right ahead.
    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Most crucially, the Uber app itself operates here in Dublin the same as it does in San Francisco, which proves there is no technological reason for them to be treated differently by the regulator.
    Well does it really? Well do you want to explain then why during my time in SF, I couldn't find a taxi - and could only access uber and lyft whilst in Dublin all we effectively have are taxis? Do you want to explain why if you ask anyone on the streets of Dublin do we have Uber, they'll tell you we don't? Maybe its because (in reality) we dont!?
    Spook_ie wrote: »
    there is no reason to allow people to use their own cars with minimal regulations.
    There is EVERY reason to allow it with sane regulations - and the WAV requirement is in effect a blanket ban and barrier to entry.

    Either you don't understand how a dynamic sharing economy works in this sense or you know very well and want to shut it out. The innovation is a combination of the app approach and then harnessing that tech to pair passenger and driver. A driver that would otherwise be going that direction or a driver who wants to work for a couple of hours with a car that would otherwise be sitting in his driveway.


  • Options
    #1018
    Spook_ie
    Registered Users Posts: 10,896 ✭✭✭✭Spook_ie


    makeorbrake wrote: »
    You want to go back over this and rake through it one more time when it's clear we don't agree...fine.

    See previous posts. Experts on innovation have flagged Uber as being innovative.

    - You can squeal all you want but the arrival of the use of apps has been innovative. You can claim that the taxi industry brought this in. It was brought in by tech companies.
    That taxi companies followed - is a clear indication that that in isolation was innovative.

    Secondly that there is no other innovation other than the app is to misunderstand the whole concept - and that misunderstanding (whether feigned or real....and probably both on this thread by various posters) mean's your missing the whole point.

    Look up "innovation" and the "sharing economy". If you don't understand what the 'sharing economy' is and how it has been enabled, then we have nothing to talk about (aside from the fact that you're just plain wrong).

    Additionally, many here seem to be unable to grasp that this goes far beyond the person seeking a car/lift in terms of innovation. Enabling the ability of people to use their own cars - and potentially to participate in that sharing economy by switching on the app when they're driving a long commute or other journey is powerful. It means a far greater efficiency in how we use our existing car fleet. It means both parties to that journey can achieve greater efficiency in that they both save $ - and they can do so without there being a fall off in quality/service....quite the opposite.

    The app is central to the offering - but that isn't the only aspect of it.

    You want to keep your heads in the sand - go right ahead. Its truly backward but go right ahead.


    Well does it really? Well do you want to explain then why during my time in SF, I couldn't find a taxi - and could only access uber and lyft whilst in Dublin all we effectively have are taxis? Do you want to explain why if you ask anyone on the streets of Dublin do we have Uber, they'll tell you we don't? Maybe its because (in reality) we dont!?


    There is EVERY reason to allow it with sane regulations - and the WAV requirement is in effect a blanket ban and barrier to entry.

    Either you don't understand how a dynamic sharing economy works in this sense or you know very well and want to shut it out. The innovation is a combination of the app approach and then harnessing that tech to pair passenger and driver. A driver that would otherwise be going that direction or a driver who wants to work for a couple of hours with a car that would otherwise be sitting in his driveway.

    So I notice you can't ( even when given examples ) decide on what sort of regulation you think the NTA should bring in or waive to allow Uber to operate in Ireland, hardly takes a genius to realise you just haven't a notion other than Uber, Innovation, Sharing Economy and other buzz words to throw around.


  • Options
    #1019
    makeorbrake
    Registered Users Posts: 4,664 ✭✭✭makeorbrake


    Spook_ie wrote: »
    So I notice you can't ( even when given examples ) decide on what sort of regulation you think the NTA should bring in or waive to allow Uber to operate in Ireland, hardly takes a genius to realise you just haven't a notion other than Uber, Innovation, Sharing Economy and other buzz words to throw around.

    You can be as disingenous as you want. The post youre referring to was in response to both of your claims that there's no innovation to be seen here.

    You're also going back over ground covered. Other than that, I clearly stated that the WAV requirement needs to be dropped. I also have stated consistently that regulation should be completely separate as ride sharing and taxi'ing are not the same. Perhaps you have memory issues. I'd get that checked out if I was you.


    As regards 'sharing economy' being a 'buzzword' how embarrassing for you.


  • Options
    #1020
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,237 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    Saying ‘but it’s innovative because innovation experts have said so’ isn’t much of an argument.

    Throughout the course of this thread you have failed:

    - to differentiate the Uber app from MyTaxi
    - to differentiate ridesharing from taxiing

    I look forward to the next one thousand posts of tail chasing though...

    Meanwhile I can use the Uber app in Dublin, proving the tech benefits have indeed been delivered to me, the customer.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1021
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,475 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    makeorbrake wrote: »
    You want to go back over this and rake through it one more time when it's clear we don't agree...fine.

    See previous posts. Experts on innovation have flagged Uber as being innovative.

    - You can squeal all you want but the arrival of the use of apps has been innovative. You can claim that the taxi industry brought this in. It was brought in by tech companies.
    That taxi companies followed - is a clear indication that that in isolation was innovative.

    Secondly that there is no other innovation other than the app is to misunderstand the whole concept - and that misunderstanding (whether feigned or real....and probably both on this thread by various posters) mean's your missing the whole point.

    Look up "innovation" and the "sharing economy". If you don't understand what the 'sharing economy' is and how it has been enabled, then we have nothing to talk about (aside from the fact that you're just plain wrong).

    Additionally, many here seem to be unable to grasp that this goes far beyond the person seeking a car/lift in terms of innovation. Enabling the ability of people to use their own cars - and potentially to participate in that sharing economy by switching on the app when they're driving a long commute or other journey is powerful. It means a far greater efficiency in how we use our existing car fleet. It means both parties to that journey can achieve greater efficiency in that they both save $ - and they can do so without there being a fall off in quality/service....quite the opposite.

    The app is central to the offering - but that isn't the only aspect of it.

    You want to keep your heads in the sand - go right ahead. Its truly backward but go right ahead.


    Well does it really? Well do you want to explain then why during my time in SF, I couldn't find a taxi - and could only access uber and lyft whilst in Dublin all we effectively have are taxis? Do you want to explain why if you ask anyone on the streets of Dublin do we have Uber, they'll tell you we don't? Maybe its because (in reality) we dont!?


    There is EVERY reason to allow it with sane regulations - and the WAV requirement is in effect a blanket ban and barrier to entry.

    Either you don't understand how a dynamic sharing economy works in this sense or you know very well and want to shut it out. The innovation is a combination of the app approach and then harnessing that tech to pair passenger and driver. A driver that would otherwise be going that direction or a driver who wants to work for a couple of hours with a car that would otherwise be sitting in his driveway.
    makeorbrake wrote: »
    You can be as disingenous as you want. The post youre referring to was in response to both of your claims that there's no innovation to be seen here.

    You're also going back over ground covered. Other than that, I clearly stated that the WAV requirement needs to be dropped. I also have stated consistently that regulation should be completely separate as ride sharing and taxi'ing are not the same. Perhaps you have memory issues. I'd get that checked out if I was you.


    As regards 'sharing economy' being a 'buzzword' how embarrassing for you.

    This is the issue, Taxi'ng and "ride sharing" are ultimately the same thing. Zero difference.


Advertisement