Taxis overcharging on meters via remote fobs

Calhoun wrote: »

I don't think so, the bad old days it was a closed shop and greed was plenty for those on the inside but screw the consumer. Kinda like the driver's we are talking about in this thread, all about the money.

If not the regulators then whomever the licensing authority is, they have a job to maintain the integrity of the industry.

With tech like we have with the likes of Uber I don't know why we don't have a fairly transparent pricing system .

"Greed was plenty"? What do you mean by that comment.You then go on to say ,"kinda like the drivers we are talking about in this thread", Your implying that every single driver was acting illegal pre deregulation. Which is simply not true.

Yes the regulators have a job to maintain the integrity of the industry,however there are less than 20 for the whole country. Theyre are far too many taxis for the population, so its virtually impossible to get to grips with whats going on.

We, DO have a transparent pricing system, tell me how it is not.

Uber is not here by the way , they cannot work they were they do in other countries , and rightly so.

Mr.Frame wrote: »

"Greed was plenty"? What do you mean by that comment.You then go on to say ,"kinda like the drivers we are talking about in this thread", Your implying that every single driver was acting illegal pre deregulation. Which is simply not true.

Yes the regulators have a job to maintain the integrity of the industry,howeve mer there are less than 20 for the whole country. Theyre are far too many taxis for the population, so its virtually impossible to get to grips with whats going on.

We, DO have a transparent pricing system, tell me how it is not.

Uber is not here by the way , they cannot work they were they do in other countries , and rightly so.

What I am implying is that having a closed market only benefits the supplier as the barrier to entry are so high. So when someone advocates for high regulation I can only imagine they are thinking of the benefit to their wallets like the chaps who are overcharging customers.

Maybe the government needs to invest in the regulator to keep an eye on what's going on then, if not that then at least open up the market to Uber or Lyft. If we aren't going to try and maintain the integrity of the industry we might as well go with these other methods of doing it.

My assumption on the pricing came down to a driver being able to over charge on 280 rides.

I am not so sure about not letting Uber have access to the market. As said above if we cannot keep integrity of what we currently have and allow for an relatively minor barrier to entry for what is not super skilled labor we are doing something really wrong.

The vast majority of my account customers(as a taxi driver) don't either look at the meter or wait for a receipt.
They get a email receipt through FreeNow,and that seems to do them.
If I was unscrupulous,(I'm 100% honest!) I could quite easily see how adding up to 9 euro extras would go undetected for a long time.
You have an absolute right to a printed receipt showing the date,km travelled,time,driver number,fare and any extras charged.
If more users asked for the receipt,then the sooner these charlatans that blacken the trade would be found out.

Calhoun wrote: »

My point is more of a counter balance to what the other poster is saying or I think they are saying. I think they are implying that we have it wrong right now and the barriers to entry have created a scenario where the industry is unsafe. The only way to make it safe is by closing the market like before.

If that's the case and we are saying right now the concerns raised in the thread cannot be addressed then we might as well open up the market to Uber. You cannot oppose Uber because it's all self regulation and in the same breath lament that the current industry isn't 100% safe because we opened the market up.

I'd say pick your poison as I don't think we are going to go down the path of a closed market where plates could sell for a huge amount.

The market for the most part is closed.You can't buy or transfer a plate anymore.As a new entrant you either rent or possibly put a wheelchair accessible taxi on the road(a certain number are released every year,subject to government whim )

No limits?
'...The WAV19 Grant Scheme commences on 01 February 2019 and applications will be considered on a first received basis, subject to an application being satisfactorily completed, until the available funds are expended...'

Mr.Frame wrote: »

First off, RE read what I said, i said you can be and are fined. Your incorrect assumption that this automatically means being taken off the road is as i say incorrect. Which only goes to show that the vast majority of the public are quite ignorant when it comes to the taxi business.

and I didnt lie and do not lie.

Being on the road illegally (can be fined) means are off the road and ignoring it

Mental gymnastics don't stand up in court

L1011 wrote: »

Being on the road illegally (can be fined) means are off the road and ignoring it

Mental gymnastics don't stand up in court

*sigh*
If a driver is fined , he is fined, end of. That does NOT mean he or she is off the road

Mr.Frame wrote: »

*sigh*
If a driver is fined , he is fined, end of. That does NOT mean he or she is off the road

If means they're on the road illegally, and were before they got the fine too. That means they are off the road and breaking the rules.

Give up your mental gymnastics, you are only fooling yourself - if even

L1011 wrote: »

If means they're on the road illegally, and were before they got the fine too. That means they are off the road and breaking the rules.

Give up your mental gymnastics, you are only fooling yourself - if even

No mental gymnastics, nor do i lie. You can be fined and continue to work.

I deal in facts, you deal in thinking you know it all from the comfort of your armchair.

Read what I just posted to Spook.ie of a factual incident that happened at T1

Bye now.

L1011 wrote: »

A "factual incident" that sounds like nonsense and isn't even the same to begin with

Nothing you have said here is trustworthy.

So I state an actual incident and "you" decide not to believe it.

Brilliant! Well thats that then!

Youve been shown up.

Bye

L1011 wrote: »

Shown up for thinking you're not making truthful statements? That was clear many posts ago.

Ok,I'll bite.

So, do tell me where I was not "making truthful statements".

Given that 1) I specifically told you I dont/didnt lie
2) Gave you a specific incident,that YOU dont believe.
3) Youre an armchair critic

I await, with baited breath.

Mr.Frame wrote: »

Ok,I'll bite.

So, do tell me where I was not "making truthful statements".

Given that 1) I specifically told you I dont/didnt lie
2) Gave you a specific incident,that YOU dont believe.
3) Youre an armchair critic

I await, with baited breath.

You seem to have appointed yourself as a spokesperson for taxi drivers.

You should stop. You're sh1t at it.

L1011 wrote: »

I've already said what I don't think you're truthful on, so don't pass out holding your breath waiting to be told again. It is possible however that you're just grossly misinformed instead.

Even if your shaggy dog tale from the airport is in fact true it was completely unrelated to the issue at hand in the first place!

and I already said I dont lie.

Accusing me of lying is not right,and is taking my character which is not right given that one is a moderator as well .

Spook_ie wrote: »

There are no limits on WAT/WAH licences being issued, likewise there are no limits on limousine licenses. Indeed the NAT could actually decide on a whim to decide they have enough WAT/WAHs for now and start reissuing saloon licences.

The market is NOT closed.

This bull again. Market is closed for regular taxis has been since 2011 if I recall correctly.

Time to allow ridesharing. I'll continue to raise with it my local TDs (Shame one is the useless fecker Shane Ross) as an important improvement to public transport.

Calhoun wrote: »

Interesting have we closed the market after leaving it open for too long or is just a case that the regulator gave into the demands of the strike a while back?

Market was closed to regular taxis in 2011 under the pretext of increasing the number of WATs. Spook, the taxi drivers, and their lobby will of course deny it was a pretext. Taxi drivers will pretend they care about WATs but won't put their money where their mouth is and say they agree with a law that requires all taxis to be WATs in one year.

My view is completely disproportionate and anti-competitive. I also think it has the unintended consequence of making it harder for those who need a WAT to be able to get one because they're being used by people who don't need them for who a regular taxi would be fine.

Uber-style ridesharing is the way to go in my view. Even allowing new regular hackney licenses at a nominal fee would be a step towards improving the current mess.

In the context of this specific discussion around some drivers finding ways to rip customers off, introducing competition into the market in the form of another mode with different billing/controls (etc) would be one way to reduce instances of bad behavior. Systems where only one class of service can be effectively offered under licensing is a recipe for outright rip offs and day to day rent seeking.

L1011 wrote: »

There's been plenty of cases of abuse of Uber's system by dishonest drivers so it would acheive absolutely nothing with regards to that.

Yeah I think where you have humans you have fraud. But competition makes it more difficult for both fraud and rent seeking, which is as good as fraud in terms of its effect on consumers over time.