Uber

magicbastarder · 15-07-2019 2:43pm

ridesharing (as practiced by uber) =/= sharing. how difficult can this be?

makeorbrake · 15-07-2019 3:00pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

ridesharing (as practiced by uber) =/= sharing. how difficult can this be?

How difficult indeed when the discourse here amongst the naysayers won't recognise any form or implementation of ride sharing. Therefore, absolutely no point in going into the specifics of Uber's implementation.

LuckyLloyd · 15-07-2019 3:21pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

What makes you both look thick is the fact that the rest of the world recognises the unique aspect of the sharing economy as it relates to ridesharing. But go ahead and make fools of yourselves.

Both of us are “thick” so, along with the Advocate General, who doesn’t see the uniqueness as:

- justifying a separate legal treatment of an app platform to facilitate taxiiing as distinct from the taxiing itself
- justifying the entire service package (app platform, drivers, price control) being subject to directives other than those that exist to cover taxiing / transport

You may believe that you’ve somehow proved otherwise (which I don’t really think you do, but whatever) and you may state ad nauseam that you’ve proved otherwise but it simply isn’t the case.

LuckyLloyd · 15-07-2019 3:24pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

ridesharing (as practiced by uber) =/= sharing. how difficult can this be?

It’s not difficult. So long as I’m charging you a fee (controlled by me) to provide a service at your request I’m no longer sharing anything with you. That’s the core of the issue that Makeorbrake continuously fails to address.

makeorbrake · 15-07-2019 3:41pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

You may believe that you’ve somehow proved otherwise (which I don’t really think you do, but whatever) and you may state ad nauseam that you’ve proved otherwise but it simply isn’t the case.

I most certainly do - and anyone that is progressive around the world takes that view also. As regards 'proved otherwise' that's your coloured opinion - and nothing more.

makeorbrake · 15-07-2019 3:44pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It’s not difficult. So long as I’m charging you a fee (controlled by me) to provide a service at your request I’m no longer sharing anything with you. That’s the core of the issue that Makeorbrake continuously fails to address.

Its a fallacy to suggest that there isn't a distinct difference between ride sharing and taxiing.

LuckyLloyd · 15-07-2019 3:55pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

Its a fallacy to suggest that there isn't a distinct difference between ride sharing and taxiing.

So what’s the difference? I’m all ears.

makeorbrake · 15-07-2019 5:05pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

So what’s the difference? I’m all ears.

Covered in depth already. Please take the time to read through.

Spook_ie · 15-07-2019 5:36pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

AFAIK there wouldn't be a shortfall from the MIBI fund.
If he illegally lends his car to another driver Ubers cover wouldn't kick in, if he hasn't the required cover on his car then again Uber cover wouldn't likely kick in because it's a top up policy not a replacement policy

Uber Insurance Requirements US

FOR PARTNERS
Insurance Requirements
To drive with Uber, you are required to have, and provide proof of an appropriate level of vehicle insurance. The requirements are:

- You must have comprehensive or third party property damage cover.
- You must be listed as an insured driver on the policy, even if you are driving someone else's car.
- The insurance policy must list the vehicle make type, model, year and registration
- The insurance policy must display an effective and expiry date.

and
Insurance Requirements US

Insurance requirements
Uber maintains automobile liability insurance on behalf of all U.S. rideshare driver-partners while logged onto the Uber app.

As a ride-sharing driver, you are also required to maintain auto insurance that meets your state's minimum financial responsibility.

Driver-partners who have a livery or limo business must maintain all compulsory licensing and commercial insurance requirements in accordance with state or local law

There are various policies that are different for different countries, for example in the UK you are required to have for "hire and reward" or at least in the ones I checked

LuckyLloyd · 15-07-2019 5:38pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

Covered in depth already. Please take the time to read through.

Can you not offer a few sentences cogently summarising the difference? Because there are a few posters along with me who don't agree that it's been covered. And seeing as you are convinced that there is an obvious difference, it should be easy to summarise. You genuinely have my ear here.

makeorbrake · 15-07-2019 8:11pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Can you not offer a few sentences cogently summarising the difference? Because there are a few posters along with me who don't agree that it's been covered. And seeing as you are convinced that there is an obvious difference, it should be easy to summarise. You genuinely have my ear here.

LL, I have no intention of trying to change the entrenched views of you and your co-travellers on this subject :-)
I'm happy that the issue has been covered over a multitude of posts.

LuckyLloyd · 15-07-2019 9:28pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

LL, I have no intention of trying to change the entrenched views of you and your co-travellers on this subject :-)
I'm happy that the issue has been covered over a multitude of posts.

So no, there is no difference between taxiing and ridesharing. You could have saved a few hundred posts admitting the obvious a couple of weeks ago but shur.

usernamegoes · 15-07-2019 9:28pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Oh yeah? You should probably substantiate that. I’m reading and quoting the Advocate General opinion directly.

The reason the AG does not offer an opinion on ridesharing v taxing is because the ECJ was not asked that point.

The ECJ's judgement does not try to answer the question of what is taxing and what is ridesharing because it didn't need to. All it needs to answer was was Uber offering ‘a service in the field of transport’ or an ‘information society service’. That's all.

The Court held that Uber was offering a service in the field of transport. Not that ridesharing was taxing.

Once it had decided that it was then up to Member States to choose how to regulate such services. Ireland didn't have to change anything because it already regulated such services.

Even if a a future Directive or Irish legislation allowed ridesharing this judgement would have no major issue as such services would still be
offering a service in the field of transport under the ECJ's ruling.

TLDR: The AG (not a binding decision-maker as I am sure you know) and the ECJ were not asked to opine on this point and even if they did it would be Obiter Dictum as we say in the law.

makeorbrake · 15-07-2019 9:29pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

So no, there is no difference between taxiing and ridesharing. You could have saved a few hundred posts admitting the obvious a couple of weeks ago but shur.

You trying to declare black is white isn't going to cut the mustard, dude. But live in whatever fantasy world you want - I don't mind.

LuckyLloyd · 15-07-2019 9:37pm

usernamegoes wrote: »

The reason the AG does not offer an opinion on ridesharing v taxing is because the ECJ was not asked that point.

The ECJ's judgement does not try to answer the question of what is taxing and what is ridesharing because it didn't need to. All it needs to answer was was Uber offering ‘a service in the field of transport’ or an ‘information society service’. That's all.

The Court held that Uber was offering a service in the field of transport. Not that ridesharing was taxing.

Once it had decided that it was then up to Member States to choose how to regulate such services. Ireland didn't have to change anything because it already regulated such services.

Even if a a future Directive or Irish legislation allowed ridesharing this judgement would have no major issue as such services would still be
offering a service in the field of transport under the ECJ's ruling.

TLDR: The AG (not a binding decision-maker as I am sure you know) and the ECJ were not asked to opine on this point and even if they did it would be Obiter Dictum as we say in the law.

They were asked whether Uber was providing a transport service or some other type of service and, as part of addressing that question, they provide an expansive analysis of Uber as a traditional taxi / transport provider. I quoted the Advocate General opinion but as you know the court did not materially disagree with their opinion on this occasion.

They’re a taxi company. We await some convincing argument to the contrary.

LuckyLloyd · 15-07-2019 9:40pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

You trying to declare black is white isn't going to cut the mustard, dude. But live in whatever fantasy world you want - I don't mind.

It is you who can’t express his position in a cogent couple of sentences. As such, probably time to lock her up.

makeorbrake · 15-07-2019 9:47pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It is you who can’t express his position in a cogent couple of sentences. As such, probably time to lock her up.

That is your opinion and purely by coincidence you come from the other side of the debate. Your opinion is wayward.

And just as another body check - its entirely up to the regulator. They can mash it all together or they can regulate separately. Just because they haven't done so thus far doesn't mean that they can't or in the future, that they won't.

usernamegoes · 15-07-2019 10:09pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

They were asked whether Uber was providing a transport service or some other type of service and, as part of addressing that question, they provide an expansive analysis of Uber as a traditional taxi / transport provider. I quoted the Advocate General opinion but as you know the court did not materially disagree with their opinion on this occasion.

They’re a taxi company. We await some convincing argument to the contrary.

There was little to no analysis as to ridesharing v taxing. It was about whether Uber's platform is a transport service rather than tech company.

I don't believe you know how the ECJ deal with AG opinions. The Court didn't address the taxi v RS question is because it didn't need to. It's as simple as that.

n97 mini · 15-07-2019 11:35pm

Does it really matter if some people view ride-sharing as taxiing? Or as ride-sharing for that matter.

It appears to me only the pro taxi lobby have a view that it is taxiing, and want it regulated as such so that they can stifle competition and keep their arcane regulatory practices that keep availability low to keep prices high.

In other countries ride-sharing is the answer to inflated prices, but here it'll be 24 hour bus routes. And shock horror, some of those will be run by the private sector.

makeorbrake · 15-07-2019 11:50pm

n97 mini wrote: »

In other countries ride-sharing is the answer to inflated prices, but here it'll be 24 hour bus routes. And shock horror, some of those will be run by the private sector.

Yeah, the night bus is the answer to keeping Uber out. I'm pretty confident there's NOWHERE on the planet that has unearthed that level of desperation in trying to support an argument that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

magicbastarder · 16-07-2019 8:25am

The Innisfil experiment: the town that replaced public transit with Uber

In 2017, the town in Ontario, Canada, embarked on an ambitious – and, to its critics, fraught – experiment. It handed responsibility for public transit to the ride-sharing app Uber.
Instead of buses or trains plying regular routes, it is Uber’s roving cars that function as the transit fleet. When a rider opens the app, Innisfil Transit pops up as the cheapest option to travel between a network of popular areas called “hubs”, such as libraries, the recreation centre or municipal buildings.
...
But beyond the excitement of essentially having subsidised taxi service, experts paint a more troubling picture of questionable economic and environmental sustainability. The city has now spent more on Uber than the traditional transit option it was considering, and has dramatically increased the number of cars on its roads, with worrying implications for air quality and the climate crisis.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jul/16/the-innisfil-experiment-the-town-that-replaced-public-transit-with-uber

Spook_ie · 16-07-2019 9:07am

magicbastarder wrote: »

The Innisfil experiment: the town that replaced public transit with Uber

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jul/16/the-innisfil-experiment-the-town-that-replaced-public-transit-with-uber

Doesn't matter how many real world reports, articles etc. that are provided a core group of people are sticking their fingers in their collective ears, humming loudly to themselves to drown out any voices of discord and trying to sleepwalk the rest of us into the land of Uber.

magicbastarder · 16-07-2019 9:16am

i just find it startling that in a town of 40,000 people, over 2,000 are uer drivers. that's a *horrendously* inefficient 'public transport' service.

it seems to have a vey low population density though.

makeorbrake · 16-07-2019 9:24am

Spook_ie wrote: »

Doesn't matter how many real world reports, articles etc. that are provided a core group of people are sticking their fingers in their collective ears, humming loudly to themselves to drown out any voices of discord and trying to sleepwalk the rest of us into the land of Uber.

And any old story that you can use to further your own objective here will work right, without context.

They chose to use it to REPLACE buses and trains! :rolleyes: What do you expect happened as a consequence. I don't recall any such suggestion in this thread. All manner of things can happen if there is a poorly thought out plan.

kippy · 16-07-2019 9:28am

makeorbrake wrote: »

And any old story that you can use to further your own objective here will work right, without context.

They chose to use it to REPLACE buses and trains! :rolleyes: What do you expect happened as a consequence. I don't recall any such suggestion in this thread. All manner of things can happen if there is a poorly thought out plan.

But surely you can admit that the increase in car journeys (due to human laziness more than anything else) as a result of a service such as Uber and others like it is extremely bad for the environment and goes against pretty much all of the current trends?

makeorbrake · 16-07-2019 9:42am

kippy wrote: »

But surely you can admit that the increase in car journeys (due to human laziness more than anything else) as a result of a service such as Uber and others like it is extremely bad for the environment and goes against pretty much all of the current trends?

Eh, look at the example given. They used Uber as a means to replace buses and trains. NO-ONE here has suggested such a thing. So, to your point - no I don't agree.

If anything, it demonstrates the importance of planning and system design and that's where regulation (conscious, fully thought out and engaged) comes in too.

devnull · 16-07-2019 8:10pm

Please be civil with each other else I'll be getting the cards out

- Moderator

end of the road · 16-07-2019 8:19pm

n97 mini wrote: »

Does it really matter if some people view ride-sharing as taxiing? Or as ride-sharing for that matter.

It appears to me only the pro taxi lobby have a view that it is taxiing, and want it regulated as such so that they can stifle competition and keep their arcane regulatory practices that keep availability low to keep prices high.

In other countries ride-sharing is the answer to inflated prices, but here it'll be 24 hour bus routes. And shock horror, some of those will be run by the private sector.

regulating ride sharing as exactly what it is isn't stifling competition. it is insuring a level playing field for all psvs.
24 hour bus routes is something many of us public transport users want and they will benefit us greatly. they are hugely welcome and long over due.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Yeah, the night bus is the answer to keeping Uber out. I'm pretty confident there's NOWHERE on the planet that has unearthed that level of desperation in trying to support an argument that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

uber is not being kept out. they already operate in ireland. it is uber itself which is preventing itself from expanding further.

makeorbrake · 16-07-2019 8:23pm

end of the road wrote: »

regulating ride sharing as exactly what it is isn't stifling competition. it is insuring a level playing field for all psvs.

Except it's being regulated out of existence. Therefore, there is no level playing field (not that they're on the same playing field in any event. Just because one could pull users from one to the other doesn't put them on the same playing field in and of itself.

end of the road wrote: »

24 hour bus routes is something many of us public transport users want and they will benefit us greatly. they are hugely welcome and long over due.

Any further expansion of public transportation is always to be welcomed.

end of the road wrote: »

uber is not being kept out. they already operate in ireland. it is uber itself which is preventing itself from expanding further.

That's not true. Ask anyone on the streets if we have Uber and they' will tell you we don't. That's kind of symptomatic of the fact that it has effectively been regulated out of existence in real terms.

Of course we can agree to disagree - that option is open to you.

n97 mini · 16-07-2019 11:22pm

end of the road wrote: »

regulating ride sharing as exactly what it is isn't stifling competition. it is insuring a level playing field for all psvs.
24 hour bus routes is something many of us public transport users want and they will benefit us greatly. they are hugely welcome and long over due.

uber is not being kept out. they already operate in ireland. it is uber itself which is preventing itself from expanding further.

If public transport doesn't work for you, you have exactly one alternative, a taxi. They all charge the same rate, as they've no competition. Uber in Ireland gets you a taxi, not an UberX. I think Uber are only still here as they have offices in Limerick employing a few hundred.

I agree with you about 24 hour bus routes. Late night travellers need an affordable alternative to taxis.

ELM327 · 17-07-2019 2:30pm

I don't understand why we can't just have uber like in the US.
It's so successful over there, seems like cronyism and protectionism is the only reason we don't have it here. Jobs for the lads in the taxis.

Spook_ie · 17-07-2019 4:48pm

ELM327 wrote: »

I don't understand why we can't just have uber like in the US.
It's so successful over there, seems like cronyism and protectionism is the only reason we don't have it here. Jobs for the lads in the taxis.

The reason you can't have it like the US is because we have a government body called the National Transport Authority, and their job is to oversee the SPSV and passenger transport sector, of which Uber as a transport provider is deemed to be a part of since the ECJ judgement.

17-07-2019 5:30pm

ELM327 wrote: »

I don't understand why we can't just have uber like in the US.
It's so successful over there, seems like cronyism and protectionism is the only reason we don't have it here. Jobs for the lads in the taxis.

We can and do have Uber here, we just don't have it on a large scale because Uber prefer a market where they can run roughshod over regulations, competitors and consumers.

usernamegoes · 17-07-2019 5:50pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

The reason you can't have it like the US is because we have a government body called the National Transport Authority, and their job is to oversee the SPSV and passenger transport sector, of which Uber as a transport provider is deemed to be a part of since the ECJ judgement.

The ECJ judgment has no relevance to why Uber ridesharing doesn't operate in Ireland. It would have relevance as to whether Uber would have to be regulated as a dispatch operator, that doesn't seem to matter too much to Uber in Ireland. If Uber had have won the case that would not have affected Ireland's laws on regulation of driving other people for reward.

The other poster is correct; it's protectionism.

usernamegoes · 17-07-2019 5:56pm

Deleted User wrote: »

We can and do have Uber here, we just don't have it on a large scale because Uber prefer a market where they can run roughshod over regulations, competitors and consumers.

No, Uber (proper) have tried to enter the Irish market, but have not due to the regulations not allowing it. It's not that they prefer not to. I don't think that's even a debate to be fair.

The debate is whether the regulations should accommodate ridesharing.

17-07-2019 6:17pm

usernamegoes wrote: »

The debate is whether the regulations should accommodate ridesharing.

they charge a fare for carrying passengers from A to B, its not sharing, its a taxi for which regulations exist

magicbastarder · 17-07-2019 6:23pm

by any sensible definition of 'sharing', uber's core business is not one of sharing.

makeorbrake · 17-07-2019 6:23pm

Deleted User wrote: »

they charge a fare for carrying passengers from A to B, its not sharing, its a taxi for which regulations exist

ride sharing is not taxi-ing. Regulation can distinguish between hackney and taxi. It can do so with ridesharing and taxi'ing.

magicbastarder · 17-07-2019 6:24pm

it'd be like claiming that getting my accountant mate Gav to rewire my fuseboard for me is 'electriciansharing'. it's not, it's getting someone to do a job cheaper because they claim the regulations should not apply to them.

makeorbrake · 17-07-2019 6:28pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

it'd be like claiming that getting my accountant mate Gav to rewire my fuseboard for me is 'electriciansharing'. it's not, it's getting someone to do a job cheaper because they claim the regulations should not apply to them.

Ride sharing and the sharing economy has been recognised around the world as a separate innovation. It wouldn't become a thing if it was just taxi'ing.

magicbastarder · 17-07-2019 6:34pm

you need to run around the mulberry bush three times at midnight, repeating 'uber's ridesharing is not taxiing' backwards before it actually becomes true, you know.

17-07-2019 6:39pm

Deleted User wrote: »

they charge a fare for carrying passengers from A to B, its not sharing, its a taxi for which regulations exist

the average consumer could give a toss about the regulated taxi industry or how it would be disrupted (read: made cheaper) by the likes of Uber and Lyft.

what exactly are the fantastic benefits for the consumer of these regulations?

they want cheaper transport options in a country that has poor public transport options and availability timewise (e.g. at night)

it's like Dunnes Stores being able to stop Lidl coming to Ireland as they'd prefer not to have the hassle of competition.

17-07-2019 6:40pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

it'd be like claiming that getting my accountant mate Gav to rewire my fuseboard for me is 'electriciansharing'. it's not, it's getting someone to do a job cheaper because they claim the regulations should not apply to them.

there is some skill involved in being an electrician and your house might burn down if the job is not done properly.

doesn't apply to a taxi driver.

makeorbrake · 17-07-2019 6:48pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

you need to run around the mulberry bush three times at midnight, repeating 'uber's ridesharing is not taxiing' backwards before it actually becomes true, you know.

Respectfully, I think a few folks here may have spent far too much time hanging out of mulberry bushes if they can't figure out the difference. (more likely they do but don't want to admit to it due to either self interest or wayward ideological reasons).

Marcusm · 17-07-2019 6:50pm

usernamegoes wrote: »

The reason the AG does not offer an opinion on ridesharing v taxing is because the ECJ was not asked that point.

The ECJ's judgement does not try to answer the question of what is taxing and what is ridesharing because it didn't need to. All it needs to answer was was Uber offering ‘a service in the field of transport’ or an ‘information society service’. That's all.

The Court held that Uber was offering a service in the field of transport. Not that ridesharing was taxing.

Once it had decided that it was then up to Member States to choose how to regulate such services. Ireland didn't have to change anything because it already regulated such services.

Even if a a future Directive or Irish legislation allowed ridesharing this judgement would have no major issue as such services would still be
offering a service in the field of transport under the ECJ's ruling.

TLDR: The AG (not a binding decision-maker as I am sure you know) and the ECJ were not asked to opine on this point and even if they did it would be Obiter Dictum as we say in the law.

You might want to delete the last para; the ECJ is not bound by its own decisions so it’s hardly a contrast to say that it’s not bound by an Advicate General. Additionally, the ECJ does not generally distinguish between obiter dicta and ratio decidendi in the way a common law court would.

LuckyLloyd · 17-07-2019 7:15pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

ride sharing is not taxi-ing

How is it different?

makeorbrake · 17-07-2019 7:16pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

How is it different?

Asked and answered ad nauseum. Please read through previous pages of this thread.

magicbastarder · 17-07-2019 7:21pm

i have seen dozens of 'that's already been answered' posts but not one post that those posts supposedly refer to.

Stephen15 · 17-07-2019 7:21pm

glasso wrote: »

the average consumer could give a toss about the regulated taxi industry or how it would be disrupted (read: made cheaper) by the likes of Uber and Lyft.

what exactly are the fantastic benefits for the consumer of these regulations?

they want cheaper transport options in a country that has poor public transport options and availability timewise (e.g. at night)

it's like Dunnes Stores being able to stop Lidl coming to Ireland as they'd prefer not to have the hassle of competition.

Competition is fine as long as it's regulated. Uber do not want to operate in Ireland as they do not want to comply with Irish regulations. If they are complying with regulations then that is a form of unfair competition.

Dunnes Stores could not try to prevent Lidl entering Ireland unless Lidl were in breach of regulations.

makeorbrake · 17-07-2019 7:33pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

i have seen dozens of 'that's already been answered' posts but not one post that those posts supposedly refer to.

That's your opinion - but it's a wayward opinion. If you're confused on the subject, please review past posts on this thread.

Uber

Comments