Uber

howiya · 06-01-2018 5:31pm

markodaly wrote: »

So, you just made that up then. OK

A wheelchair accessable taxi, €35,000 please
http://www.freedommobility.ie/viewanad.php?ad_id=1852433

Yea, its a non issue of course. Claiming that anyone can become a taxi driver for €170, when you have to fork out €35,000 in capital to avail of it.
What is your next point of economic wisdom? Claiming we already pay for water? :rolleyes:

So now you've gone from €20,000 to €35,000...

Throw wheelchair accessible into a search on the likes of carzone and you don't have to spend that much money

https://www.carzone.ie/search/result/cars/keyword/wheelchair%2520accessible

You also conveniently ignore the fact you can get up to €10k grant aid towards your wheelchair accessible vehicle

howiya · 06-01-2018 5:39pm

markodaly wrote: »

You give too much credence to the NTA then. The NTA are a public body, would they not release this data or maybe they have no data to begin with.

As they are a public body you can send them a FOI request if you want the data.

How would they not have data? They licence each taxi, so they know whether a vehicle is wheelchair accessible or not. They know how many taxis are licensed. Simple percentage calculation.

Then there's this survey we do called a census which tells public bodies information about the country's population.

I don't think I'm giving the NTA too much credence at all. It's not rocket science.

end of the road · 06-01-2018 5:47pm

markodaly wrote: »

So, you just made that up then. OK

A wheelchair accessable taxi, €35,000 please
http://www.freedommobility.ie/viewanad.php?ad_id=1852433

Yea, its a non issue of course. Claiming that anyone can become a taxi driver for €170, when you have to fork out €35,000 in capital to avail of it.
What is your next point of economic wisdom? Claiming we already pay for water?

wo, wo, wo. hold on there a second. a few minutes ago it was 20000. now it's 35000, talk about shifting the goalposts when you got caught out.
the fact is, buying a good car is going to cost, a taxi is an investment for those who are serious about entering the industry. so if you are going to have to buy a good car, it may as well be a wheelchair accessible one, as it's going to cost the same as a number of other top brands. so it's a non-issue.
and yes we do pay for water via general taxation.

MJohnston · 06-01-2018 5:52pm

Talking of the cost of vehicles - do Uber drivers not have to buy them too?

Losty Dublin · 06-01-2018 7:41pm

markodaly wrote: »

Do you have a source for this? I can understand a certain % but all? No taxi industry in the world has this requirement as far as I know.

All Small Public Hire Vehicles in the UK must be wheelchair assessable. Private Hire however aren't.

Losty Dublin · 06-01-2018 7:43pm

usernamegoes wrote: »

Uber insure the trips. You are spreading a myth. Even if they didn't I'd have no problem with a law requiring them to insure the trip.

Unless Uber is checking that their drivers and their cars are certified to operate as PSV's then such insurance will be null and void in Ireland.

Phil.x · 06-01-2018 8:08pm

nilescraneo wrote: »

Yes, Dublin needs MORE cars on the roads. That will solve our traffic and shoddy public transport problems!

Yes well we're back to the days of long walks or long waits for taxis at the weekend, so bring it on I say.

And it's not just the weekend, the company I work for were told by the taxi company they use it's very hard to guarantee a cab Mon-Fri, so give hour's if not days notice, there's just too much work on the street they were told.

usernamegoes · 07-01-2018 1:40am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so how are you covered for the rest of the time?, not working etc because your insurance policy won't cover you full stop if you are at any point using the vehicle for reward...

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Unless Uber is checking that their drivers and their cars are certified to operate as PSV's then such insurance will be null and void in Ireland.

Under the current framework, but we are suggesting it should be changed. Also Many of us have no problem with requiring licensing (albeit I don't know what good it does) but such license should not have unreasonable barriers to entry.

Under a framework like that you could require uber have insurance covering the trips (if the driver's insurance doesn't).

07-01-2018 2:08am

Phil.x wrote: »

And it's not just the weekend, the company I work for were told by the taxi company they use it's very hard to guarantee a cab Mon-Fri, so give hour's if not days notice, there's just too much work on the street they were told.

Your company would be well advised to switch taxi providers then.

A regular fare, that's the one that pays the mortgage

n97 mini · 07-01-2018 2:44am

Some observations.

#1 I don't know where this sense of entitlement is coming from that if you drive you should make enough to support a family. I use Uber/Lyft extensively abroad and none of the drivers I've spoken to use it as their sole income. They all have "day jobs" and are driving to top-up their earnings. Many are students and it's a great way to pay for college.

#2 Some people prefer taxis under the current system, and that's fine. Allowing UberX/Lyft type services means more choice, but don't deny us who would like to use Uber that choice... you can still use your taxi.

#3 Uber/Lyft vetting does exist. There are a pile of taxi drivers with criminal records, not to mention those who have never sat a driving test (due to various amnesties) on our roads. These would not be allowed drive for Uber.

#4 Rural transport has been hammered by changes to the law. A decade ago we had hackneys, now we have none. Those hackey drivers who made feck all in a week in rural villages have not gone for taxi licences as they're too expensive. With Uber etc, people in rural communities would have a new sense of freedom as their neighbours could get out and drive instead of staying in watching the Late Late Show.

There are other benefits too, they're just a few.

n97 mini · 07-01-2018 2:54am

I should add in my own personal experience I don't use taxis in Ireland as I think they're too expensive, and aren't good value for money. I see Uber/Lyft more of an alternative to public transport.

E.g. I occasionally go for a beer in the next village. The bus costs €2.10. A taxi costs €10. I never get a taxi home as a result. But if I could get an Uber/Lyft home for €5 I'd use it regularly.

end of the road · 07-01-2018 3:10am

n97 mini wrote: »

Some people prefer taxis under the current system, and that's fine. Allowing UberX/Lyft type services means more choice, but don't deny us who would like to use Uber that choice... you can still use your taxi.

nobody is denying you the choice to use uber though. what's being said is that ubber will have to abide by the regulations set down in relation to taxi services if it wants to operate in this country, given that it is ultimately a taxi service. the regulations shouldn't be relaxed for it unless we relax the regulations for all taxis. uber is not special and shouldn't have specialised legislation tailored for it.

n97 mini · 07-01-2018 3:23am

end of the road wrote: »

nobody is denying you the choice to use uber though. what's being said is that ubber will have to abide by the regulations set down in relation to taxi services if it wants to operate in this country, given that it is ultimately a taxi service. the regulations shouldn't be relaxed for it unless we relax the regulations for all taxis. uber is not special and shouldn't have specialised legislation tailored for it.

You know as well as I do that by forcing Uber (and Lyft etc) to operate under taxi laws means there is no differentiation between taxis and Uber. I call an Uber in Ireland and I get a taxi. I don't want a taxi! Taxis operate in what the competition authority (or whatever they're called now) would call cartell-like behaviour. i.e. there is no difference in price between any of them. Imagine if all supermarkets charged exactly the same price for their goods.

Given that "crowd sourcing" is the way forward, blocking UberX from operating like it does in other countries not only deprives small local communities of a valuable service, it also stops ordinary working people from making an extra few bob, and makes Ireland look like it's still in the dark ages, which it is in a lot of ways.

end of the road · 07-01-2018 3:38am

n97 mini wrote: »

You know as well as I do that by forcing Uber (and Lyft etc) to operate under taxi laws means there is no differentiation between taxis and Uber.

ultimately there is no differentiation between them in terms of what type of service they are anyway. they are both taxis, uber and lift just have a different method of operation.

n97 mini wrote: »

I call an Uber in Ireland and I get a taxi. I don't want a taxi! Taxis operate in what the competition authority (or whatever they're called now) would call cartell-like behaviour. i.e. there is no difference in price between any of them. Imagine if all supermarkets charged exactly the same price for their goods. Given that "crowd sourcing" is the way forward, blocking UberX from operating like it does in other countries not only deprives small local communities of a valuable service, it also stops ordinary working people from making an extra few bob, and makes Ireland look like it's still in the dark ages, which it is in a lot of ways.

no, it doesn't make ireland look like it is in the dark ages or deprive local communities of a valuable service. if there is money to be made in such services then they will be operated. working people would be deprived of an extra few bob for many reasons, it's no good reason for uber to be exempt from legislation for it's industry, the taxi industry.
what you are arguing for here is for uber to be made a special case, it's not a special case. it's a taxi service with a different method of operation to indigenous taxi services.

Cookie_Monster · 07-01-2018 4:21am

usernamegoes wrote: »

Well then they're breaking the law. No one is arguing for no insurance. Have a law which requires proper insurance. I don't see the problem

but there is no such law in Ireland, you can't have a standard private policy on a vehicle and use that same vehicle for uber as it makes the private policy void and you are therefore uninsured all the time.

MJohnston · 07-01-2018 12:03pm

n97 mini wrote: »

I should add in my own personal experience I don't use taxis in Ireland as I think they're too expensive, and aren't good value for money. I see Uber/Lyft more of an alternative to public transport.

E.g. I occasionally go for a beer in the next village. The bus costs €2.10. A taxi costs €10. I never get a taxi home as a result. But if I could get an Uber/Lyft home for €5 I'd use it regularly.

To use your own words back at you - where does your sense of entitlement come from that you think you deserve cheap fares at the expense of someone else's livelihood?

If the bus trip costs €2.10 then €10 for a private hire vehicle seems about right considering. We shouldn't be encouraging the use of inefficient transport modes like taxis by making them competitive price-wise with buses.

howiya · 07-01-2018 12:25pm

Phil.x wrote: »

Yes well we're back to the days of long walks or long waits for taxis at the weekend, so bring it on I say.

And it's not just the weekend, the company I work for were told by the taxi company they use it's very hard to guarantee a cab Mon-Fri, so give hour's if not days notice, there's just too much work on the street they were told.

I get a taxi home from work every night Monday to Friday and don't have any issues getting a taxi and only give a couple of minutes notice at a time

Losty Dublin · 07-01-2018 1:12pm

n97 mini wrote: »

I should add in my own personal experience I don't use taxis in Ireland as I think they're too expensive, and aren't good value for money. I see Uber/Lyft more of an alternative to public transport.

E.g. I occasionally go for a beer in the next village. The bus costs €2.10. A taxi costs €10. I never get a taxi home as a result. But if I could get an Uber/Lyft home for €5 I'd use it regularly.

So basically your argument boils down to as follows....

I don't use taxis at all. Let's change the law entirely so I can save a fiver going to the pub even though it's cheaper to walk, get the bus, drink closer to or at home, or even to take the pledge.

usernamegoes · 07-01-2018 2:09pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

but there is no such law in Ireland, you can't have a standard private policy on a vehicle and use that same vehicle for uber as it makes the private policy void and you are therefore uninsured all the time.

You do understand that we know that it can't be done at present, we are saying this is what should happen. A change to allow cars to be used for hire but such cars would require insurance that would cover them all the time. Ride sharing insurance is available in other countries and I can't see why insurers wouldn't offer it here too. And if no insurers do then I suppose then the model won't work or someone will come up with another idea. But I can't see why insurers here wouldn't do it.

Uber then also insure the trip in case for some reason the driver's insurance doesn't. This in fact is a higher standard than taxis. If I am in a taxi which is illegal or perhaps loaned to someone else and we're in a crash then the insurer won't pay out but if I am in an uber and the driver's insurer won't pay out then uber's insurance covers it.

markodaly · 07-01-2018 6:22pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

but there is no such law in Ireland, you can't have a standard private policy on a vehicle and use that same vehicle for uber as it makes the private policy void and you are therefore uninsured all the time.

Ride sharing insurance policies didn't exist in the US before ride sharing became the norm, now they do. The car insurance market will move with the times.

markodaly · 07-01-2018 6:26pm

MJohnston wrote: »

To use your own words back at you - where does your sense of entitlement come from that you think you deserve cheap fares at the expense of someone else's livelihood?

If the bus trip costs €2.10 then €10 for a private hire vehicle seems about right considering. We shouldn't be encouraging the use of inefficient transport modes like taxis by making them competitive price-wise with buses.

I think you are missing the point. If taxi's became more affordable, then there would be an increase in volume. Think about the airline industry, how many people fly no compared to the 80's?

No is one is 'entitled' to earn a wage just cause, that wage has to add some value to what ever activity they are performing. Again, I heard all these arguments in the 90's when taxi drivers were giving out yarns about deregulation. They viewed it that they had a human right to charge customers more than what was fair and closed entry into the business off to others, by restricting licenses. I trust no one is arguing that they want to see those days back?

Essentially long term the taxi industry as we know it is dead, as autonomous cars will see to that. This will lead to a sea change in how we view public transport and and owning cars.

end of the road · 07-01-2018 6:42pm

markodaly wrote: »

I think you are missing the point. If taxi's became more affordable, then there would be an increase in volume. Think about the airline industry, how many people fly no compared to the 80's?

No is one is 'entitled' to earn a wage just cause, that wage has to add some value to what ever activity they are performing. Again, I heard all these arguments in the 90's when taxi drivers were giving out yarns about deregulation. They viewed it that they had a human right to charge customers more than what was fair and closed entry into the business off to others, by restricting licenses. I trust no one is arguing that they want to see those days back?

Essentially long term the taxi industry as we know it is dead, as autonomous cars will see to that. This will lead to a sea change in how we view public transport and and owning cars.

high volume public transport such as bus and rail based solutions will continue to be the main stay of public transport and will be the options most pushed for as it will still be efficient compared to car based public transport, whether ride share/automated cars. automated cars will eventually replace current taxis but bus and rail will always be more space efficient and consume less resources.

markodaly · 07-01-2018 7:04pm

end of the road wrote: »

high volume public transport such as bus and rail based solutions will continue to be the main stay of public transport and will be the options most pushed for as it will still be efficient compared to car based public transport, whether ride share/automated cars. automated cars will eventually replace current taxis but bus and rail will always be more space efficient and consume less resources.

Yes, I agree. There will still be a need for high volume transport methods. I see buses to be more frequent as it will get very cheap to run them. They will be powered by battery, no need for drivers so the cost to run and maintain them will drop substantially.

MJohnston · 07-01-2018 8:06pm

markodaly wrote: »

I think you are missing the point. If taxi's became more affordable, then there would be an increase in volume. Think about the airline industry, how many people fly no compared to the 80's?

No is one is 'entitled' to earn a wage just cause, that wage has to add some value to what ever activity they are performing. Again, I heard all these arguments in the 90's when taxi drivers were giving out yarns about deregulation. They viewed it that they had a human right to charge customers more than what was fair and closed entry into the business off to others, by restricting licenses. I trust no one is arguing that they want to see those days back?

Essentially long term the taxi industry as we know it is dead, as autonomous cars will see to that. This will lead to a sea change in how we view public transport and and owning cars.

Moving those goalposts yet again - you're being annoyingly disingenuous about what points I'm trying to make and then arguing with yourself about things I didn't say. For example, where did I say taxi drivers were entitled to a wage?

markodaly · 07-01-2018 8:12pm

You wrote about the entitlement of the Taxi drivers when you talk about cheaper fares harming someones livelihood. Did you oppose the deregulation of the Taxi industry in 2000 ?

MJohnston · 07-01-2018 8:15pm

markodaly wrote: »

You wrote about the entitlement of the Taxi drivers when you talk about cheaper fares harming someones livelihood.

No, I didn't. Can you please stop making things up?

markodaly · 07-01-2018 8:40pm

Why mention this then though?

To use your own words back at you - where does your sense of entitlement come from that you think you deserve cheap fares at the expense of someone else's livelihood?

trellheim · 07-01-2018 8:41pm

Are we back to Uber shill land again ? Lets face it if they thought there was competition to be had they'd be in here but those nasty requirements for PSV and insurance mean a level playing field But do we we see them in taxi hack or limo .... no.

MJohnston · 07-01-2018 8:53pm

markodaly wrote: »

Why mention this then though?

Because that's simply the flip side of what n97 was saying, if you think you deserve cheaper fares, the balance of that is that taxi drivers earn less money. Nowhere did I argue that taxi drivers are entitled to that money.

markodaly · 07-01-2018 9:24pm

MJohnston wrote: »

Because that's simply the flip side of what n97 was saying, if you think you deserve cheaper fares, the balance of that is that taxi drivers earn less money. Nowhere did I argue that taxi drivers are entitled to that money.

It is not a zero sum game. Are airlines making less money now than the 80's when airfares were much much higher?

strandroad · 07-01-2018 9:33pm

markodaly wrote: »

It is not a zero sum game. Are airlines making less money now than the 80's when airfares were much much higher?

No because trips increased exponentially to make up for it. But if you apply it to cars you run out of roads. We are gridlocked as we are. Dreams of Uber just point to the fact that we don't have a mature public transport system.

Cookie_Monster · 07-01-2018 9:34pm

usernamegoes wrote: »

You do understand that we know that it can't be done at present, we are saying this is what should happen. A change to allow cars to be used for hire but such cars would require insurance that would cover them all the time. Ride sharing insurance is available in other countries and I can't see why insurers wouldn't offer it here too.

markodaly wrote: »

Ride sharing insurance policies didn't exist in the US before ride sharing became the norm, now they do. The car insurance market will move with the times.

In Ireland

Yeah right, the same country that massively penalises you for a 15+ year old vehicle, or if you dare to have a 2L+ engine, or if you're male or under 40

Don't make me laugh, it'll never happen in Ireland in an affordable manner.

n97 mini · 07-01-2018 10:18pm

strandroad wrote: »

No because trips increased exponentially to make up for it. But if you apply it to cars you run out of roads. We are gridlocked as we are. Dreams of Uber just point to the fact that we don't have a mature public transport system.

Rural Ireland for one is not gridlocked. A friend lives in a small town in Wexford. They had two hackneys as that's all the town could support. Now they have nothing.

usernamegoes · 07-01-2018 11:10pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

In Ireland
Yeah right, the same country that massively penalises you for a 15+ year old vehicle, or if you dare to have a 2L+ engine, or if you're male or under 40

Don't make me laugh, it'll never happen in Ireland in an affordable manner.

Well then if you're right you have nothing to fear the model will fail, no one is suggesting they should be allowed operate without insurance. If you're certain insurance companies won't offer it then what's the harm?

ted1 · 07-01-2018 11:16pm

n97 mini wrote: »

I should add in my own personal experience I don't use taxis in Ireland as I think they're too expensive, and aren't good value for money. I see Uber/Lyft more of an alternative to public transport.

E.g. I occasionally go for a beer in the next village. The bus costs €2.10. A taxi costs €10. I never get a taxi home as a result. But if I could get an Uber/Lyft home for €5 I'd use it regularly.

Is it a bus eireann bus or another bus service using the PSO which we susidise.

How far is the village ? Petrol costs in my Ford Focus are about 1.50 per 10km. Add on the cost of the car, driving from last fare to you, Uber’s high % fee, maintenance of car, costs of car. 5 Euro isn’t a reasonable fare.

n97 mini · 08-01-2018 12:21am

ted1 wrote: »

Is it a bus eireann bus or another bus service using the PSO which we susidise.

How far is the village ? Petrol costs in my Ford Focus are about 1.50 per 10km. Add on the cost of the car, driving from last fare to you, Uber’s high % fee, maintenance of car, costs of car. 5 Euro isn’t a reasonable fare.

Let the market decide. If it's not worth doing no-one will do it.

ED E · 08-01-2018 12:24am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

and oversight.

Oversight? What oversight? The carriage office dont want to know about the significant minority of Dublin taxis that flaunt the law.

circular flexing · 08-01-2018 7:34am

The reason Uber is cheaper is that it's currently being bankrolled by huge amounts of venture capital so can afford to eat some losses. Just look at the figures here

https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/uber

Latest figures have the company losing more than $1 billion per quarter

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/11/ubers-crisis-deepens-with-record-quarterly-loss/

This is obviously unsustainable. Their end game is a monopoly (just like what traditional taxis had) so they can better control the fares charged (guess which direction they will go if Uber has a monopoly) which is why they hate competition so much. The other way for them to become sustainable is driverless cars but that's still some way off (imo)

The people who have invested in Uber aren't doing so out of pure kindness - they did so because they want to make money and believe in Uber's model.

usernamegoes · 08-01-2018 11:30pm

circular flexing wrote: »

The reason Uber is cheaper is that it's currently being bankrolled by huge amounts of venture capital so can afford to eat some losses. Just look at the figures here

https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/uber

Latest figures have the company losing more than $1 billion per quarter

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/11/ubers-crisis-deepens-with-record-quarterly-loss/

This is obviously unsustainable. Their end game is a monopoly (just like what traditional taxis had) so they can better control the fares charged (guess which direction they will go if Uber has a monopoly) which is why they hate competition so much. The other way for them to become sustainable is driverless cars but that's still some way off (imo)

The people who have invested in Uber aren't doing so out of pure kindness - they did so because they want to make money and believe in Uber's model.

I'll let VC funds pay for my trips and if they run out of money and fares go up such that taxis are cheaper I might go back to taxis if I thought the value was bad with uber.

It can't form a monopoly. What exists now is a monopoly.

listermint · 08-01-2018 11:42pm

n97 mini wrote: »

Let the market decide. If it's not worth doing no-one will do it.

But it's already decided as you pointed out.

Uber should not be heralded as the new great hope it's a leech business.

listermint · 08-01-2018 11:43pm

usernamegoes wrote: »

I'll let VC funds pay for my trips and if they run out of money and fares go up such that taxis are cheaper I might go back to taxis if I thought the value was bad with uber.

It can't form a monopoly. What exists now is a monopoly.

Taxies won't be around to compete.

It's clear you don't know what a monopoly is.

Uber is practically it in the US. A fact i learned when trying to book a cab from the office.

end of the road · 08-01-2018 11:51pm

usernamegoes wrote: »

I'll let VC funds pay for my trips and if they run out of money and fares go up such that taxis are cheaper I might go back to taxis if I thought the value was bad with uber.

It can't form a monopoly. What exists now is a monopoly.

uber is a taxi, so you would be going from 1 taxi to another. uber can and will form a monopoly, what exists now isn't a monopoly as there are thousands of taxi operators from self-employed to companies meaning a huge amount of competition.

n97 mini · 09-01-2018 1:03am

end of the road wrote: »

uber is a taxi, so you would be going from 1 taxi to another. uber can and will form a monopoly, what exists now isn't a monopoly as there are thousands of taxi operators from self-employed to companies meaning a huge amount of competition.

Virtually all taxis now charge the same rates. In any other industry this would be considered cartel-like behaviour, as it results in no meaningful competition.

If every filling station in Ireland charged the same for petrol and diesel it wouldn't be tolerated.

EDIT: Uber can't form a monopoly as it already has competition from the likes of Lyft, which is usually a bit cheaper.

trellheim · 09-01-2018 1:10am

Virtually all taxis now charge the same rates

they are not required to, you can walk up to any cab in the airport and negotiate a fare if I recall.

Cookie_Monster · 09-01-2018 1:18am

n97 mini wrote: »

Virtually all taxis now charge the same rates. In any other industry this would be considered cartel-like behaviour, as it results in no meaningful competition.

there are set max rates. With so many individual operators rather than companies there's no incentive for an individual to offer a cheaper rates, they just won't have the marketing and availability to make it work.
If there were larger branded companies and everyone knew that "The Bright Green painted Cab Co" was 10% cheaper than "Purple Cabs" they'd definitely try and hail only a green car...

n97 mini · 09-01-2018 1:28am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

there are set max rates. With so many individual operators rather than companies there's no incentive for an individual to offer a cheaper rates, they just won't have the marketing and availability to make it work.
If there were larger branded companies and everyone knew that "The Bright Green painted Cab Co" was 10% cheaper than "Purple Cabs" they'd definitely try and hail only a green car...

Yep, all true. As there are no Green or Purple cabs it's chose the maximum rate or get the bus or be collected.

n97 mini · 09-01-2018 1:30am

trellheim wrote: »

they are not required to, you can walk up to any cab in the airport and negotiate a fare if I recall.

Or just get the bus or a lift and leave the taxis where they are. Personally I fly 3-6 times a year but the last time I got a taxi* (actually a hackney) to the airport was 2006.

howiya · 09-01-2018 1:30am

n97 mini wrote: »

Yep, all true. As there are no Green or Purple cabs it's chose the maximum rate or get the bus or be collected.

Out of interest do you haggle with the barman when you go for a pint in the next village?

n97 mini · 09-01-2018 1:37am

howiya wrote: »

Out of interest do you haggle with the barman when you go for a pint in the next village?

Haggling is generally not my thing. But then again the bars don't charge exactly the same price regardless of where I go so I don't need to haggle. If I don't like the price I take my wallet elsewhere.

howiya · 09-01-2018 2:00am

n97 mini wrote: »

Haggling is generally not my thing. But then again the bars don't charge exactly the same price regardless of where I go so I don't need to haggle. If I don't like the price I take my wallet elsewhere.

That's one thing we agree on. Not much of a haggler either. It's just from the outside looking in it seems that you don't mind the price of everything else except taxis.

In the example you gave a taxi was €10 and you're prepared to pay €5. While you may take your business elsewhere if the publican is charging too much, it seems unlikely that you'd be able to achieve a similar 50% saving yet you expect it from a taxi/rideshare driver.

Uber

Comments