Uber

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You seem to be struggling with attention to detail. Where exactly did I suggest that Uber is not a technology company? My question was to whether you're still standing over your claim that 'they're a technology company because they operate an app'. It's just a bit strange that you seem to be avoiding clarifying this point.

You know dude, it's a bit rich to go on about others being ignorant and such. You said you 'know what you know'. Well this right here is testament to the fact that you know SFA about what you're talking about.

Are you familiar with APP development? Do you know what's involved in that? Because if you did - just in some basic way - you wouldn't even start to compare Uber's app with Avonmore's. Jesus, I hope that's not your real name that you're using for a username because you should be mortified.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm still not seeing the great innovation though, given that Uncle Jim had the same business practice going with his Cortina in the 70s.

Once again, a tad embarrassing for you. I cut you a bit of slack and provided you with references from an expert on innovation as regards his take on Uber - and those quotes put it in the exceptionally innovative category.

Continue to be blinded by your own loathing (whatever the reason for that) - but you're not dragging me into it. Anyone who comes on here and suggests that the company is not innovative has NO credibility.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If you think you've been 'personally attacked', you should report the post to the moderators urgently.

I have no intention of doing so. And you misunderstand but that's fine - I don't mind explaining it to you once again.

You play the man not the ball in the context of a discussion means that you can't make your own argument on it's own merits. You have to resort to trying to discredit someone that's of an opposing opinion. That behaviour reflects on you (and others here).

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I haven't attacked you personally. I've simply asked you to produce some evidence to support the claim that you made earlier? Or if you can't back it up, the obvious thing to do would be to withdraw it, given that you're convinced it is not a material point anyway. It's another simple request for clarification - no more and no less.

Eh yeah - that's playing the man, not the ball...we can call it that or a personal attack (and I guess I termed it that way as you and others are like a dog with a bone on it).
So, it's not me that said that it wasn't relevant initially - it was the other party - whom I was having the discussion with at the time. Now, if you can prove how it's relevant (WITHOUT making any reference to me in doing so), then I'm happy to look at it again.
Otherwise, those that have pursued it - it proves to anyone else reading the thread that your motives are wayward/ill-conceived.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You said; " You need to compete like everyone else."
What do I need to compete on, given that I'm not a taxi driver.

Well whoopdy-doo. Big woof. "Taxi drivers need to compete like everyone else"

Happy now? How do you think a neutral would feel with you making a meal out of a point like that? Wasting peoples time. It's quite obvious the point I'm trying to make. I've also been providing a counter-argument to not just you - many others (a few of which have said they're taxi drivers...which you know already). If you have to go to this level, you lost the argument a long time ago dude.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You seem to have missed the fact that 'libertarian fan boy' was a direct response to your 'champagne socialism' jibe!

And I used the 'champagne socialism' reference as a direct response to this =>

The cry of libertarians everywhere as they race to bottom on standards for consumers and the possibility of earning a living wage. I've zero vested interest in this, other than as an occasional customer btw.

You went down that filthy road....although it does give us an insight into your backward thinking and delusion (when multiple people have come on here and said they've used ride sharing services and the standard was better).

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And then you get all hurt? Are you one of those guys who can dish it out but can't take it?

Stroll on, dude. You wish it, of course but sorry to disappoint you. I couldn't give a fiddlers. The only concern is that by not sticking to the topic at hand, you're destroying a good discussion. But that's the bitter little cretin coming through.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's not a suggestion that people are ignorant. It's a fact. Most people are ignorant of most stuff.

To any neutral reading this, the Taxi men will tell you whats good for you. Apparently, as a consumer you need to go and have a lie down for yourself. You're getting ahead of yourself thinking that you know what products/services best suit your needs. The clever lads driving the taxi's will decide that for you.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Congratulations on your appointment as spokesperson for the consumer though. I guess I missed the memo about your new position. Do let us know how exactly you've worked out 'what consumers want'.

I see. Apparently, it's a bad idea to let the consumer decide 'what consumers want'. I guess that ties in to your point above about 'most people being ignorant'...given that consumers are 'most people'.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You're really doing a bang-up job on encouraging implementation of ride sharing with details of all those illegal services. It's great that we have decent regulation over here that means that illegal taxi services are a rare event - few and far between.

Maybe you should take some of your own medicine and STFU about things and places you haven't got a damn notion about. You go on about me being hurt and not being able to take it, dude you wouldn't be able to make your way in from the airport out here. Of that, I'm certain.

Uber / InDriver / Beat work perfectly here. The endorsement? The travelling public are making the switch. Better quality cars. Better quality drivers with reviews. A permanent record of who the driver was should anything untoward happen or if you leave something in the car. The ability to review the driver/car/experience and look at the reviews others have left. The ability to choose the type of car (for InDriver/Beat).

And after all of that, you've great standards there. Take some of your own medicine and don't talk in ignorance about a place you've never been to and never accessed such services in.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Eh no. Try it yourself, Google 'uber and risk' and you'll gets stories about the dangers to drivers and to passengers, not the dangers to competitors.

Wrong. You're going to try and tell us that nothing untoward has ever happened to any passenger in an irish taxi? With these high standards you talk about, how did sexual deviants get taxi licenses? How did mobsters get taxi licenses what with all of these high standards?

Other than that, there has been a lot of sensationalism about uber in that context when that's simply a matter of regulation. i.e. regulator requires both to have a background check. That's where your standards finish i.e. with that, there would be no difference.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

literally didn't compare taxi drivers to doctors. I made about about laissez faire regulation - no more and no less.

YES, you very much did! That's what you do when you employ an analogy. Taxi drivers have FA to offer - with your 'standards'! That's the bottom line. They can add FA added value - particularly with the mindset that's on display here.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I've just explained that above - remember the point about driver vetting and vehicle safety?

And I've dismantled your argument in that respect. This is just protectionist nonsense - no more, no less.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You're welcome to disagree of course, but it would be interesting to know what your disagreement is based on. Have you spoken to many Irish taxi drivers, or looked at the degree of enforcement done by the Regulator or what?

In response to your 'knowledge' based on the riveting disclosure, ' I know what I know' :rolleyes:

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Funnily enough, a few posts on a bulletin board isn't exactly evidence. But again, if the Uber drivers / cars have higher standards, they'll have no difficulty getting through the standard regulatory process, right?

People posted their own experiences...but I forgot, they're ignorant...so we should ignore that feedback, right.:rolleyes:

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Consumers are 'unshackled' today. Most taxi firms have apps to let the consumers 'vote' with their smartphone. The only difference is price - you want to cut the prices to an unsustainable level, so we'll have drivers working unsafe levels of hours in unmaintained vehicles. Remind me again how this helps consumers?

Remind you again how this helps consumers? Ah, yes, the consumer is ignorant (says you) and doesn't know his/her arse from his/her elbow - so leave it to the taxi men and a fella like yerself who 'knows what he knows' to shield them from the evils in the world. Who do you think believes that horse****? I'm not buying what yer sellin'.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So you don't get it, OK then. Check out Donald Rumsfeld's comments from around 2002/2003 about the known unknowns and unknown unknowns and see if you can work it out.

No, i'm good thank you. The main take away for readers is "You know enough to know what you know". That will be all they need to "know".:rolleyes:

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And there was no ideology from you in this thread, by any chance?

You got up on your ideological soapbox first and foremost. Insofar as I can remember, I didn't make any such claims. However, what I did do was respond the moment you went down that road.

And full disclosure - my ideology - is pro innovation for the betterment of society and consumers. That doesn't put me left or right or any of that nonsense.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Seriously though, isn't it strange that you feel qualified to dictate how the Irish taxi market should work when you really don't get how things work on the ground here?

Listen to yourself. Firstly, I'm not 'dictating' anything to anyone. I'm expressing my point of view and opinion - as I'm entitled to do and is kind of the idea of platforms such as boards.
Other than that, there's a theme in the 'tact' (if you could call it that!) you're taking here ...and that's that us lesser people (the ones that don't agree with you) aren't qualified to express an opinion here. Because, "You know what you know"

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

They can't be vetted at present, because only designated bodies can do Garda vetting.

If that's the case, then that can be easily fixed. Are you suggesting that Uber are not open to that?

Over here, Uber drivers are vetted. Nobody with a criminal record can drive for Uber in this market. I've already disclosed that ridesharing services are illegal here so clearly Uber implemented that of its own accord. It also has a maximum car age threshold which means that there are taxis in Ireland right now that are older than here. Again, Uber implemented that standard of its own accord.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But if Uber drivers want to meet the same standards as all other drivers, they are welcome to do their thing, once their vehicles meet the required standard too.

The idea is that they can go out and use their family cars - which are tested regularly in Ireland. This nonsense about only being able to ride share if they go out and buy a WAV is protectionist nonsense. Keep saying the opposite and I'll keep correcting you on it.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Presumably because it was 100% correct, right?

No. Because what you wrote was complete nonsense - not worthy of comment.

In fairness to makeorbrake. He’s dedicated.... he took apart Andy’s views bit by bit and came across as if he knew a lot more of the industry than Andy . As I said before , I’m s neutral here but it seems as if one or two posters are just shouting down makeorbrake ... if everyone can post stuff as civilly as him this thread will be great.

Ok , I’ve a question. If Uber are bleeding out their money. At what point will they have to start increasing their prices to taxi levels ? Next year ? Year after??? Does anyone know.

hawkelady wrote: »

In fairness to makeorbrake. He’s dedicated.... he took apart Andy’s views bit by bit and came across as if he knew a lot more of the industry than Andy . As I said before , I’m s neutral here but it seems as if one or two posters are just shouting down makeorbrake ... if everyone can post stuff as civilly as him this thread will be great.

Ok , I’ve a question. If Uber are bleeding out their money. At what point will they have to start increasing their prices to taxi levels ? Next year ? Year after??? Does anyone know.

Uber have been burning through $2b cash per year the last two years, and it raised $8b with last month’s IPO. Now that they are a public company of course, they probably will not be able to continue haemorrhaging money and retain their $80b market valuation. The days of them subsidising their taxis are probably coming to an end as the market forces them to realise better financial outcomes.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you think that driver vetting standards and vehicle standards have any role in satisfying the customer at the end of the day?.

Gee, I dunno.... perhaps we could do something radical like let the consumer decide.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Your presumption is wrong.

So long as the its bastardised and can only be used by actual taxi's....is what he's going for here.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Myself I'd say one or two posters want either a retraction or an answer.

It's already been well and truly established that it's not in the best interests of the overall discussion given that it was accepted from the get go that it wasn't relevant to the overall discussion.
On that basis, I won't be appeasing requests from those that want to take the discussion off-point for their own agenda (and it very much is an agenda).

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

And it is only trying to capture a monopoly so that it can up prices in the medium term; and roll out driverless cars in the long term.

We absolutely should resist deregulation and a race to the bottom in terms of employee standards for a cheaper taxi. Uber are simply not worth it. They are not real and viable in the long term.

There are plenty of apps competing with Uber. It's not an industry that can be permanently monopolised.

In the long run the equilibrium price will probably end up higher than Uber's current pricing, but it'll still be lower than current taxi fares.

If venture capitalists are willing to subsidise driving me around, let them. I don't owe taxi drivers a living.

Spook_ie wrote: »

I'll let people draw their own conclusions as to whether you lie or not one sentence after claiming another poster posts lies instead of facts.

To me it says one thing, I wouldn't trust any of your so called posts as having any facts to back them up.

So let me get this straight. You reckon I 'lied' about something that has no bearing on the discussion? Do you want to stop up and catch yerself on for a minute, per-chance? Who/what in the discussion would I be influencing if it's - as you explicitly stated - of no bearing?

It's pathetic....that you can't let your points on the actual topic stand for themselves - you have to go for character assassination (despite the fact that all the while, you're completely wrong).

Yes, readers will decide for themselves - I just pitty them that they've had to read though this nonsense that has been instigated by you and a couple of others.

hawkelady wrote: »

I’m a neutral

Is this a thing? Do people really describe themselves as 'a neutral' these days in discussions like this?

makeorbrake wrote: »

Gee, I dunno.... perhaps we could do something radical like let the consumer decide.

Yeah, that would be fairly radical, given that consumers generally can't check the safety of the brakes or the shock absorbers before they start their journey.

makeorbrake wrote: »

So long as the its bastardised and can only be used by actual taxi's....is what he's going for here.

I've absolutely no idea what you're saying here.

makeorbrake wrote: »

It's already been well and truly established that it's not in the best interests of the overall discussion ...

Does 'well and truly established' just mean that you've said it a few times? I'm not sure that would meet most people's definition of 'established'.

makeorbrake wrote: »

You know dude, it's a bit rich to go on about others being ignorant and such. You said you 'know what you know'. Well this right here is testament to the fact that you know SFA about what you're talking about.

Are you familiar with APP development? Do you know what's involved in that? Because if you did - just in some basic way - you wouldn't even start to compare Uber's app with Avonmore's. Jesus, I hope that's not your real name that you're using for a username because you should be mortified.

Yeah, I know a bit about app development all right. And you're right - there is no comparison between Avonmore's app and Uber's app. You seem to have forgotten the context in which I mentioned Avonmore and others. I raised these examples to show how ridiculous your claim that 'they are a technology company because they operate an app' was. I never suggested that there was a comparison with Avonmore and others - the exact opposite. So the question still remains as to whether you stand over your claim that they are a technology company because they operate an app?

makeorbrake wrote: »

Once again, a tad embarrassing for you. I cut you a bit of slack and provided you with references from an expert on innovation as regards his take on Uber - and those quotes put it in the exceptionally innovative category.

Continue to be blinded by your own loathing (whatever the reason for that) - but you're not dragging me into it. Anyone who comes on here and suggests that the company is not innovative has NO credibility.

You can post as many articles as you like - that doesn't change the facts. The Uber business model isn't innovative. [Uncle Jim was operating in this way in the 70s, with the family car and choosing his own hours]. The Uber app isn't innovative. [Hailo/MyTaxi have been doing this for years, as long as Uber] The Uber payment by credit card isn't innovative. [Hailo/MyTaxi have been doing this for years, as long as Uber]. Where exactly is the innovation, apart from trying (and in Ireland, failing) by bypass regulation?

makeorbrake wrote: »

I have no intention of doing so. And you misunderstand but that's fine - I don't mind explaining it to you once again.

You play the man not the ball in the context of a discussion means that you can't make your own argument on it's own merits. You have to resort to trying to discredit someone that's of an opposing opinion. That behaviour reflects on you (and others here).

Eh yeah - that's playing the man, not the ball...we can call it that or a personal attack (and I guess I termed it that way as you and others are like a dog with a bone on it).
So, it's not me that said that it wasn't relevant initially - it was the other party - whom I was having the discussion with at the time. Now, if you can prove how it's relevant (WITHOUT making any reference to me in doing so), then I'm happy to look at it again.
Otherwise, those that have pursued it - it proves to anyone else reading the thread that your motives are wayward/ill-conceived.

It's a bit difficult to take allegations of 'playing the man' seriously from someone who comes out with stuff like 'bitter little cretin'. And why exactly would I be bothered to prove the relevance of your 'four companies' claim? It's your claim - you made it. If it was not relevant, why did you say it in the first place? If it was something that you plucked out of the air, why didn't you withdraw it? It's not a personal attack - it's attacking the claim that you made and have been unable to support.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Well whoopdy-doo. Big woof. "Taxi drivers need to compete like everyone else"

Happy now? How do you think a neutral would feel with you making a meal out of a point like that? Wasting peoples time. It's quite obvious the point I'm trying to make. I've also been providing a counter-argument to not just you - many others (a few of which have said they're taxi drivers...which you know already). If you have to go to this level, you lost the argument a long time ago dude.

Is this the closest you get to saying 'I made a mistake, sorry about that'? It's really not that hard to say those words. It doesn't weaken your position - quite the opposite, it actually strengthens your position. Congrats on getting close at least to a mature approach.

makeorbrake wrote: »

And I used the 'champagne socialism' reference as a direct response to this =>

Which was in response to Nermal's misdirected claim of 'vested interest' - a move you've tried yourself once or twice when you've run out of anything factual to say on the topic.

makeorbrake wrote: »

To any neutral reading this, the Taxi men will tell you whats good for you. Apparently, as a consumer you need to go and have a lie down for yourself. You're getting ahead of yourself thinking that you know what products/services best suit your needs. The clever lads driving the taxi's will decide that for you.

I see. Apparently, it's a bad idea to let the consumer decide 'what consumers want'. I guess that ties in to your point above about 'most people being ignorant'...given that consumers are 'most people'.

It's funny yet again how you have to twist and grossly exaggerate what I've said to find something that you can argue with. Is that what they call strawmanning?
I've made it explicitly clear that there absolutely IS value in asking consumers what they want or need, provided that it's done in a sensible, balanced way. I've pointed out how developments in taxi regulation in recent years have been done despite huge opposition from the taxi community, including the WAV requirement to help ensure that people with disabilities have decent access to taxi services.
So yes, most people are ignorant on the technicalities of any sector - though (for the third time) there is indeed value in asking consumers what they want or need in a balanced approach. Is that nuance a bit too subtle for you?

makeorbrake wrote: »

Maybe you should take some of your own medicine and STFU about things and places you haven't got a damn notion about. You go on about me being hurt and not being able to take it, dude you wouldn't be able to make your way in from the airport out here. Of that, I'm certain.

Uber / InDriver / Beat work perfectly here. The endorsement? The travelling public are making the switch. Better quality cars. Better quality drivers with reviews. A permanent record of who the driver was should anything untoward happen or if you leave something in the car. The ability to review the driver/car/experience and look at the reviews others have left. The ability to choose the type of car (for InDriver/Beat).

Interesting - so you're certain I couldn't just call an Uber/InDriver/Beat driver to take me in from the airport? I thought they were really safe and comfortable services, but now you're saying that I couldn't take a simple journey safely as a new arrival in the country? You're really not doing a great job bigging up Uber etc as safe services there.
And I'm fairly sure that I haven't made any comment about how things work wherever you are. I don't think you've even mentioned where exactly you are, so how could I know or comment about it. I've stuck to commenting on the situation in Ireland.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Wrong. You're going to try and tell us that nothing untoward has ever happened to any passenger in an irish taxi? With these high standards you talk about, how did sexual deviants get taxi licenses? How did mobsters get taxi licenses what with all of these high standards?

Other than that, there has been a lot of sensationalism about uber in that context when that's simply a matter of regulation. i.e. regulator requires both to have a background check. That's where your standards finish i.e. with that, there would be no difference.

Is this the 'fake news' approach of where you just shout 'wrong' loudly and hope and pray that no-one looks at the actual evidence. If you do search for 'uber risk', here's the top 10 results;

Uber Can Be Risky: 5 Reasons Why (for Drivers and Passengers)

Disgruntled drivers and 'cultural challenges': Uber admits to its biggest ...

Uber for Business: More Dangerous Than We Realized : Risk ...

Uber S-1 Risk Factors: Competitors, DeleteUber campaign, reputation

'Uber-style scheme would put users at risk of murder' - Irish Examiner

Uber lists the biggest risks to its business - Yahoo Finance

Uber's Risk Is Politics - WSJ

Mitigating Risk in a Three-Sided Marketplace: A Conversation with ...

Uber Risk Analyst Jobs | Glassdoor

So they're the risks - mostly for drivers participating, or risks to customers, or risks to their business - not the risks for their competitors as you claim.
And no, I'm not saying that things never go wrong with Irish taxis - but they are fairly few and far between - as the public review of taxi complaints shows. Do Uber publish public details of the complaints against drivers, btw?

makeorbrake wrote: »

Other than that, there has been a lot of sensationalism about uber in that context when that's simply a matter of regulation. i.e. regulator requires both to have a background check. That's where your standards finish i.e. with that, there would be no difference.

There's a bit more to Garda vetting that 'a background check', but regardless, if there would be no difference in standards, why do you keep jumping up and down about requiring new regulations for ride-sharing? You want lower standards, right?

makeorbrake wrote: »

YES, you very much did! That's what you do when you employ an analogy. Taxi drivers have FA to offer - with your 'standards'! That's the bottom line. They can add FA added value - particularly with the mindset that's on display here.

Is that your third or fourth attempt at strawmanning? I think I'm losing count. I don't know how many different ways I can explain it to you, but I didn't compare doctors to taxi drivers. I compared regulation of doctors to regulation of taxi drivers. Again, perhaps that nuance is just too subtle for you. There were no words in my post that compared doctors to taxi drivers. Any such comparison exists only inside your head.

makeorbrake wrote: »

And I've dismantled your argument in that respect. This is just protectionist nonsense - no more, no less.

What you've dismantled (in the unlikely scenario of you being left in charge of taxi regulation) is a decade or so of progress in improving access to taxi services for people with disabilities. Did you try speaking to many people with disabilities in Ireland before you went dismantling? Or are those consumers not good enough to be asked for their opinion?

makeorbrake wrote: »

Remind you again how this helps consumers? Ah, yes, the consumer is ignorant (says you) and doesn't know his/her arse from his/her elbow - so leave it to the taxi men and a fella like yerself who 'knows what he knows' to shield them from the evils in the world. Who do you think believes that horse****? I'm not buying what yer sellin'.

You need me to explain how having vetted drivers and safe cars helps consumers? I'm fairly confident that 'a neutral' can work that out for themselves thanks.

makeorbrake wrote: »

And full disclosure - my ideology - is pro innovation for the betterment of society and consumers. That doesn't put me left or right or any of that nonsense.

But just to be clear, the 'betterment of society and consumers' doesn't include people with disabilities having a decent chance of getting a taxi to get to their job interview or to get home from the pub?

makeorbrake wrote: »

If that's the case, then that can be easily fixed. Are you suggesting that Uber are not open to that?

Over here, Uber drivers are vetted. Nobody with a criminal record can drive for Uber in this market. I've already disclosed that ridesharing services are illegal here so clearly Uber implemented that of its own accord. It also has a maximum car age threshold which means that there are taxis in Ireland right now that are older than here. Again, Uber implemented that standard of its own accord.

The idea is that they can go out and use their family cars - which are tested regularly in Ireland. This nonsense about only being able to ride share if they go out and buy a WAV is protectionist nonsense. Keep saying the opposite and I'll keep correcting you on it.

Private cars are tested less frequently and less stringently than taxis, given the extra demands on the vehicles. If Uber are happy to comply with all the current standards (including the marking of vehicles), what specific standards do they want to avoid? Beyond the one that gives people with disabilities a half-decent chance of getting to their job interview or getting home from their pub.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is this a thing? Do people really describe themselves as 'a neutral' these days in discussions like this?

I'd imagine he means he's...
A. Not a taxi driver
and
B. Doesnt approach the discussion with this extreme ideology that you do.

He's just a consumer.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yeah, that would be fairly radical, given that consumers generally can't check the safety of the brakes or the shock absorbers before they start their journey.

Being deliberately obtuse once again, I see. You were the one that said people were ignorant. Consumers are quite capable of determining what represents a value proposition. As regards your shock absorbers, all cars are tested in Ireland.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I've absolutely no idea what you're saying here.

Others do but don't you bother your pretty little head about it.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Does 'well and truly established' just mean that you've said it a few times? I'm not sure that would meet most people's definition of 'established'.

Obtuse once again - given that we've been over this a million times. It means that given the other party to that specific discussion said that it was irrelevant to the discussion, there's no need to discuss it further as it doesn't bring the discussion on any further.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yeah, I know a bit about app development all right. And you're right - there is no comparison between Avonmore's app and Uber's app. You seem to have forgotten the context in which I mentioned Avonmore and others. I raised these examples to show how ridiculous your claim that 'they are a technology company because they operate an app' was. I never suggested that there was a comparison with Avonmore and others - the exact opposite. So the question still remains as to whether you stand over your claim that they are a technology company because they operate an app?

Obtuse once again.
What I said was that Uber is a technology company - and that their APP is central to their offering.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You can post as many articles as you like - that doesn't change the facts. The Uber business model isn't innovative.

Facts, huh? The irony!
Right, so experts who concern themselves with innovation say that Uber has innovated and you disagree on the basis of your Uncle Jim's experience with his Cortina in the 70's? I guess we all know who is the most credible there then.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The Uber app isn't innovative. [Hailo/MyTaxi have been doing this for years, as long as Uber] The Uber payment by credit card isn't innovative. [Hailo/MyTaxi have been doing this for years, as long as Uber]. Where exactly is the innovation, apart from trying (and in Ireland, failing) by bypass regulation?

I guess you have a comprehension difficulty in determining how innovation works. It happens when one or more companies alters industry practice or consumer behaviour. A few years ago, nobody used an APP to access transportation. Now the whole planet does. That, my friend, is innovation.

Facilitating credit card as opposed to cash - the very same. And the bypassing regulation nonsense - has been covered umpteen times. Ride sharing is not taxi-ing. When ride sharing has its own regulation, i'm sure ride sharing facilitators will have no problem in abiding by it (provided its not designed to appease the taxi industry).

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's a bit difficult to take allegations of 'playing the man' seriously from someone who comes out with stuff like 'bitter little cretin'.

Well, I guess that's a personal thing you'll have to come to terms with. I stand behind the use of the phrase as a reaction to your bad behaviour (which very much came first).

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And why exactly would I be bothered to prove the relevance of your 'four companies' claim? It's your claim - you made it. If it was not relevant, why did you say it in the first place? If it was something that you plucked out of the air, why didn't you withdraw it? It's not a personal attack - it's attacking the claim that you made and have been unable to support.

Maybe - just maybe - it's because it isn't relevant to this discussion - that the other party to that specific discussion STATED it wasn't relevant....despite your protestations.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is this the closest you get to saying 'I made a mistake, sorry about that'? It's really not that hard to say those words. It doesn't weaken your position - quite the opposite, it actually strengthens your position. Congrats on getting close at least to a mature approach.

No this is where I can further justify use of the 'bitter little cretin' remark - because this statement feeds into backing up that assertion. Mature approach? You think you have a mature approach? Laughable!

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Which was in response to Nermal's misdirected claim of 'vested interest' - a move you've tried yourself once or twice when you've run out of anything factual to say on the topic.

'Vested interests' is non-political / non-ideological. You started attacking people's values and ideologies. Remember, this recent particular point of debate has sprung from you claiming I attacked you personally. And here we are - and we find that YOU are at the root of that - not me.

As regards 'vested interests', yes I did refer to same and stand behind it.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's funny yet again how you have to twist and grossly exaggerate what I've said to find something that you can argue with. Is that what they call strawmanning?
I've made it explicitly clear that there absolutely IS value in asking consumers what they want or need, provided that it's done in a sensible, balanced way. I've pointed out how developments in taxi regulation in recent years have been done despite huge opposition from the taxi community, including the WAV requirement to help ensure that people with disabilities have decent access to taxi services.
So yes, most people are ignorant on the technicalities of any sector - though (for the third time) there is indeed value in asking consumers what they want or need in a balanced approach. Is that nuance a bit too subtle for you?

That's ok - we got this from before. "People are ignorant" and "you know what you know". We get it.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Interesting - so you're certain I couldn't just call an Uber/InDriver/Beat driver to take me in from the airport? I thought they were really safe and comfortable services, but now you're saying that I couldn't take a simple journey safely as a new arrival in the country? You're really not doing a great job bigging up Uber etc as safe services there.

Well, thats not going to be an option for you given that you're ideologically opposed to using Uber - or any other ride sharing app. So that would leave you taking a taxi in - and taxi men here have been complicit in robbing people.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And I'm fairly sure that I haven't made any comment about how things work wherever you are. I don't think you've even mentioned where exactly you are, so how could I know or comment about it. I've stuck to commenting on the situation in Ireland.

Yes, you did. You started making comparisons with the great system in Ireland not even having an earthly clue what you were comparing it to.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is this the 'fake news' approach of where you just shout 'wrong' loudly and hope and pray that no-one looks at the actual evidence. If you do search for 'uber risk', here's the top 10 results;

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So they're the risks - mostly for drivers participating, or risks to customers, or risks to their business - not the risks for their competitors as you claim.
And no, I'm not saying that things never go wrong with Irish taxis - but they are fairly few and far between - as the public review of taxi complaints shows.

So sexual deviants and mobsters have (and still do) hold taxi licenses. Thanks for clearing that up - very helpful.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There's a bit more to Garda vetting that 'a background check', but regardless, if there would be no difference in standards, why do you keep jumping up and down about requiring new regulations for ride-sharing? You want lower standards, right?

What sort of moronic claim is this? Allow people who want to driver via a ride sharing platform to be vetted/background checked in the same way as taxi drivers. That's as complex as that gets.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I don't know how many different ways I can explain it to you, but I didn't compare doctors to taxi drivers. I compared regulation of doctors to regulation of taxi drivers. Again, perhaps that nuance is just too subtle for you. There were no words in my post that compared doctors to taxi drivers. Any such comparison exists only inside your head.

You can try and be as disingenuous about it all you want. You used the doctor analogy which equates to the same thing. Try and weasel out of it all you want.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What you've dismantled (in the unlikely scenario of you being left in charge of taxi regulation) is a decade or so of progress in improving access to taxi services for people with disabilities. Did you try speaking to many people with disabilities in Ireland before you went dismantling? Or are those consumers not good enough to be asked for their opinion?

And what you're doing here is disgusting - hiding behind the disabled. That issue can be tackled in any number of ways - none of which has to affect ride sharing services to the point where it makes ride sharing unworkable. And by the very fact that ride sharing is impossible in Ireland, it means there are fewer options for consumers - which will have a knock on effect in terms of the WAV's available to those with disabilities anyway.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You need me to explain how having vetted drivers and safe cars helps consumers? I'm fairly confident that 'a neutral' can work that out for themselves thanks.

And how is a neutral going to figure anything out when you say that "people are ignorant"....even though you yourself "know what you know."

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But just to be clear, the 'betterment of society and consumers' doesn't include people with disabilities having a decent chance of getting a taxi to get to their job interview or to get home from the pub?

Once more - absolutely disgusting that you would hide behind the disabled in all of this.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Private cars are tested less frequently and less stringently than taxis, given the extra demands on the vehicles.

There's very little in the difference but if you want ride sharers to put their cars through a commercial test, no problem.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Beyond the one that gives people with disabilities a half-decent chance of getting to their job interview or getting home from their pub.

Again, the disgusting behaviour of hiding behind the disabled in order to further your agenda.

makeorbrake wrote: »

So let me get this straight. You reckon I 'lied' about something that has no bearing on the discussion? Do you want to stop up and catch yerself on for a minute, per-chance? Who/what in the discussion would I be influencing if it's - as you explicitly stated - of no bearing?

It's pathetic....that you can't let your points on the actual topic stand for themselves - you have to go for character assassination (despite the fact that all the while, you're completely wrong).

So he's completely wrong, though you're refusing to identify the four companies that would substantiate your claim? I know who I believe.

Spook_ie wrote: »

You mean unregulated taxiing then, not ride sharing.

Yeah, I'm not getting into this with you. You can call it what you like. I'll call it what everyone else in the world calls it.

I don't think I said unregulated in fact I said I do think there should be fit-for-purpose regulations. You and I disagree on what they should be. I understand you want to have unrealistic regulations to ensure that you don't have to compete with a service consumers prefer. I get that.

Uber can and does operate here, again you are asking for unregulated taxis.

Exactly. This was my point. The CJEU decision is not relevant. Call it what you like (see above)

Successive governments since the 90's have put disability awareness upfront as a policy, it is now actually showing fruits since the requirement for taxis and hackneys to be Wheelchair compliant. As I said in an earlier post.

Again require all cars to be WAVs by next year if you're so concerned. Fact is you're not. You are pretending that's what you want in order to impose artifical barriers to entry to protect yourself. You couldn't give a fiddlers about wheelchair users because if you did you would get a WAV and allow more taxis and hackneys to operate thereby ensuring the WAVs that do exist are free for wheelchair users who need them.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Out n out lie
Still an outright barefaced lie,

Eh, no it's not.