Uber

hawkelady · 12-06-2019 3:47pm

I’d love to know why spoke doesn’t want Uber to operate in Ireland ?? Is it cause his wage might reduce??? I honestly can’t see if there’s any downside to having Uber operate here.

end of the road · 12-06-2019 3:49pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

The saga around uber is not political? Really? God damn. There's hardly a country in the world where its not political.
Stick "uber" and "political" into a search and you get 46 million results.

As regards subcontracting, that's ridiculous (even if it is the ruling of the ECJ). How many app developers are subcontracting then? Anyone who takes a commission on an app is now subcontracting?

Give me a break.

the judges in the ECJ, who are experts in law, have, on the basis of all of the evidence put forward, determined that uber are a transport company. if you believe these experts are wrong, then perhapse get crowdfunding to get as much evidence as possible to refruit the ruling, and lawyers to bring a challenge against that ruling.
it is a transport company. it transports people via more or less outsourcing the driving to independant drivers, who use the ap to pick up fares, but who actually have to pay a fee to the company. ironically, joining a company and paying a small fee in exchange for that company getting them fares is i believe how some taxi companies work.

hawkelady · 12-06-2019 3:55pm

Refruit???? Haha.

Spook_ie · 12-06-2019 3:58pm

hawkelady wrote: »

I’d love to know why spoke doesn’t want Uber to operate in Ireland ?? Is it cause his wage might reduce??? I honestly can’t see if there’s any downside to having Uber operate here.

Uber does operate here, however, they have to abide by NTA regulations, I don't think anyone should be allowed to ride roughshod over regulations. If you want the NTA to change the regulations then lobby them so at least any changes will apply across the board.

makeorbrake · 12-06-2019 3:59pm

hawkelady wrote: »

Refruit???? Haha.

Consider it reFRUITed

Did every jurisdiction in the world come out with the same conclusion? Either Europe has more learned people or to my point, ALL of this is deeply political.

Spook_ie · 12-06-2019 4:04pm

hawkelady wrote: »

I’d love to know why spoke doesn’t want Uber to operate in Ireland ?? Is it cause his wage might reduce??? I honestly can’t see if there’s any downside to having Uber operate here.

Just for you here's a link to Uber Ireland

https://www.uber.com/en-IE/cities/dublin/

Spook_ie · 12-06-2019 4:16pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

Consider it reFRUITed

Did every jurisdiction in the world come out with the same conclusion? Either Europe has more learned people or to my point, ALL of this is deeply political.

I would suspect the EU might not agree that the ECJ is deeply political, if it were then maybe the UK have the right idea with Brexit, however, the judgement reads

The Court takes the view, first of all, that the service provided by Uber is more than an
intermediation service consisting of connecting, by means of a smartphone application,
a nonprofessional driver using his or her own vehicle with a person who wishes to make an urban
journey. Indeed, in this situation, the provider of that intermediation service simultaneously offers
urban transport services, which it renders accessible, in particular, through software tools and
whose general operation it organises for the benefit of persons who wish to accept that offer in
order to make an urban journey. The Court notes in that regard that the application provided by
Uber is indispensable for both the drivers and the persons who wish to make an urban journey. It
also points out that Uber exercises decisive influence over the conditions under which the drivers
provide their service.
Therefore, the Court finds that that intermediation service must be regarded as forming an
integral part of an overall service whose main component is a transport service and,
accordingly, must be classified not as ‘an information society service’ but as ‘a service in the
field of transport’.
The Court states that, consequently, the directive on electronic commerce does not apply to that
service, which is also excluded from the scope of the directive on services in the internal market.
For the same reason, the service in question is covered not by the freedom to provide services in
general but by the common transport policy. However, non-public urban transport services and
services that are inherently linked to those services, such as the intermediation service provided by
Uber, has not given rise to the adoption of measures based on that policy.

Nermal · 12-06-2019 4:53pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

After all we're upfront enough to say if we have skin or not in the game.

We all have skin in the game as customers. We should be entitled to choose between ride-sharing apps and NTA-regulated taxis. If you're confident the NTA model is better, you shouldn't fear that.

Spook_ie · 12-06-2019 5:02pm

Nermal wrote: »

We all have skin in the game as customers. We should be entitled to choose between ride-sharing apps and NTA-regulated taxis. If you're confident the NTA model is better, you shouldn't fear that.

That doesn't mean you can run an unregulated service side by side with a regulated service, either it's all unregulated or it's all regulated, either way I'm fine with, just not where one aspect has an unfair advantage.

AndrewJRenko · 12-06-2019 5:15pm

hawkelady wrote: »

I’d love to know why spoke doesn’t want Uber to operate in Ireland ?? Is it cause his wage might reduce??? I honestly can’t see if there’s any downside to having Uber operate here.

How about the downside of destroying ten years of tortuously slow progress on improvements to services for people with disabilities?

makeorbrake · 12-06-2019 5:21pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

I would suspect the EU might not agree that the ECJ is deeply political, if it were then maybe the UK have the right idea with Brexit, however, the judgement reads

Ok, so one arm of european bureaucracy would agree with another arm of european bureaucracy? You don't say.

And is this standard throughout the world? Is this the view/interpretation in the U.S., Canada, etc? In latin america, uber is illegal yet people make their own free choice and if they were to implement that ban properly, there would be riots.

AndrewJRenko · 12-06-2019 5:22pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

That may well have been the ruling by the ECJ in Europe but it stands to reason you run an app, you're a technology company.

This is just hilarious now. Is Guinness a tech company? And Avonmore? And Johnson and Johnson? And Asos? And Zara?

They all run apps, so are they all tech companies and food / fashion /pharma companies now?

makeorbrake · 12-06-2019 5:24pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

This is just hilarious now. Is Guinness a tech company? And Avonmore? And Johnson and Johnson? And Asos? And Zara?

They all run apps, so are they all tech companies and food / fashion /pharma companies now?

Now who's being ridiculous. Straight back at you with your foolishness...

Are these companies sub-contractors then?:rolleyes:

AndrewJRenko · 12-06-2019 5:36pm

Nermal wrote: »

We all have skin in the game as customers. We should be entitled to choose between ride-sharing apps and NTA-regulated taxis. If you're confident the NTA model is better, you shouldn't fear that.

This isn't like buying widgets. Taxi drivers are on the roads, often for many hours a day. This is a major safety issue for customers AND for the other people who share the roads with them. They also deal with the public at vulnerable times, often when they are alone or drunk.

These are some of the reasons why we shouldn't be comprising existing standards.

AndrewJRenko · 12-06-2019 5:37pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

Now who's being ridiculous. Straight back at you with your foolishness...

Are these companies sub-contractors then?:rolleyes:

You said 'if they run an app, they are tech companies', didn't you?

makeorbrake · 12-06-2019 5:37pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

This isn't like buying widgets. Taxi drivers are on the roads, often for many hours a day. This is a major safety issue for customers AND for the other people who share the roads with them. They also deal with the public at vulnerable times, often when they are alone or drunk.

These are some of the reasons why we shouldn't be comprising existing standards.

Eh, yeah. And you'll be the judge of that I suppose.:rolleyes:

makeorbrake · 12-06-2019 5:40pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You said 'if they run an app, they are tech companies', didn't you?

You're being totally obtuse in trying to support the unsupportable. They are app developers with an app based platform that facilitate self employed people to go out and work on a gig basis.

That's nothing like the dummy apps you were going to throw it in with and it doesn't make them subcontractors either (despite what some eurocrats claim).

Spook_ie · 12-06-2019 5:40pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

No I'm not rolling back on that both started at aprox the same time, now assuming you think that Uber was one of the 4 , name the others

Still waiting...

makeorbrake · 12-06-2019 5:43pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Still waiting...

You're already on record as stating it makes no difference - so i'm not playing yer games.

Secondly, you might want to stop and think about why that avenue was even explored - the constant suggestion that the addition of an app in this context was not innovative. Well Hailo /Uber /Lyft, etc - all technology companies doing what technology companies do - innovate.

Proven beyond doubt. The taxi industry itself didn't drive this tech.

Spook_ie · 12-06-2019 5:45pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

You're already on record as stating it makes no difference - so i'm not playing yer games.

Secondly, you might want to stop and think about why that avenue was even explored - the constant suggestion that the addition of an app in this context was not innovative. Well Hailo /Uber /Lyft, etc - all technology companies doing what technology companies do - innovate.

Proven beyond doubt. The taxi industry itself didn't drive this tech.

Chicken and egg, did the app drive the taxi industry or did the taxi industry drive the app.

Stop fudging and either name 4 companies or admit you plucked a figure out of yer ass

Spook_ie · 12-06-2019 5:52pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

You're already on record as stating it makes no difference - so i'm not playing yer games.

Secondly, you might want to stop and think about why that avenue was even explored - the constant suggestion that the addition of an app in this context was not innovative. Well Hailo /Uber /Lyft, etc - all technology companies doing what technology companies do - innovate.

Proven beyond doubt. The taxi industry itself didn't drive this tech.

Hmmm, don't think they'll agree with you.

Hailo began in late 2010, after a meeting between three London taxi drivers and three technology entrepreneurs, including co-founders Jay Bregman, CEO,[8][9][11][12][13][14] Ron Zeghibe, Executive Chairman, Caspar Woolley, Chief Operations Officer, and Russell Hall, Gary Jackson, and Terry Runham, Driver Community Leaders.

usernamegoes · 12-06-2019 5:59pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yes I could and if WATs for all was decided on then I'd comply with that regulation BUT not overnight or within a year, given 5 years notice and then on end of life of whichever vehicle I were driving maybe. As it stands at the moment if it were brought in overnight I'd still owe 9k on this car before even starting to put by any money to help fund it's replacement.

But, you could still do your job if you complied with the regulation. Same as anyone else who would like to become a taxi driver but doesn't have a WAV could become one if they complied with the regulation. This was the logic used earlier in this thread.

Seems unfair regulation works when its unfair in your favour. :rolleyes:

makeorbrake · 12-06-2019 5:59pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Chicken and egg, did the app drive the taxi industry or did the taxi industry drive the app.

Ridiculous. Did the apps build themselves? FFS. I guess if taxi drivers could build apps by talking shíte then maybe that's how it worked. Were the lads behind uber taxi drivers originally?

Spook_ie wrote: »

Stop fudging and either name 4 companies or admit you plucked a figure out of yer ass

I'm not admitting anything and you're becoming obsessed about something you yourself have said is neither here nor there. Think of how petty you're being. Think of what pursuing that DOESN'T add to the discussion.

makeorbrake · 12-06-2019 6:00pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Hmmm, don't think they'll agree with you.

lol...i see - so see my post above. Apparently the taxi drivers did talk through their holes until the apps appeared. Every days a school day.

Spook_ie · 12-06-2019 6:15pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

<snipped>
I'm not admitting anything and you're becoming obsessed about something you yourself have said is neither here nor there. Think of how petty you're being. Think of what pursuing that DOESN'T add to the discussion.

Your avoidance of answering a question that was raised by a statement from you raises plenty of questions about your truthfulness, honesty and genuine desire for discussion. If you can't name 4 companies as stated in your previous assertion, then just admit it. It won't add or detract from the high esteem in which your contributions are already being held.

Spook_ie · 12-06-2019 6:25pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ridiculous. Did the apps build themselves? FFS. I guess if taxi drivers could build apps by talking shíte then maybe that's how it worked. Were the lads behind uber taxi drivers originally?

Think you'll find it was more to do with yet another of your blanket claims

makeorbrake wrote: »

Secondly, you might want to stop and think about why that avenue was even explored - the constant suggestion that the addition of an app in this context was not innovative. Well Hailo /Uber /Lyft, etc - all technology companies doing what technology companies do - innovate.

Proven beyond doubt. The taxi industry itself didn't drive this tech.

Whether Uber were taxi drivers or not isn't the issue, it's your blatant and constant blanket statements, I'm getting fed up of doing all the research for you and you still can't name 4 companies.

Spook_ie · 12-06-2019 6:31pm

usernamegoes wrote: »

But, you could still do your job if you complied with the regulation. Same as anyone else who would like to become a taxi driver but doesn't have a WAV could become one if they complied with the regulation. This was the logic used earlier in this thread.

Seems unfair regulation works when its unfair in your favour. :rolleyes:

Lost me somewhere in that!

I'll work with whatever regulations I'm required to, just as I'd expect anyone coming into the industry to. As it stands at the moment new entrants who want a taxi license are restricted to WATs or WAH's. The NTA may change that when they get to their proposed 10%, however, if the NTA decided that at some stage in the future that I had to have a WAT or WAH, then I would comply.

I would object strenuously if this were something expected of me to comply with within a year as the costs already incurred in replacing my last vehicle haven't as yet been recouped and nothing as yet to finance the next vehicle, so I'm really not sure what you're trying to point out!

makeorbrake · 12-06-2019 7:00pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Your avoidance of answering a question that was raised by a statement from you raises plenty of questions about your truthfulness, honesty and genuine desire for discussion. If you can't name 4 companies as stated in your previous assertion, then just admit it. It won't add or detract from the high esteem in which your contributions are already being held.

Listen to yourself. You question my honesty and truthfullness and my genuine desire for discussion? Good grief!
You stated quite clearly that it doesn't matter - yet you demand an answer to your question - even though it doesn't matter. HOW is this in the best interests of a genuine discussion on the topic. As I stated before, you are being petty minded. As regards what 'esteem' a few taxi drivers on here (and others in the naysayers camp) hold me in, I think I can live with that. There have been plenty here that have expressed a similar opinion. Ironically (given that you question my motives in posting here), they're not in any way as motivated in terms of chiming in here as the naysayers. #selfinterest

Spook_ie wrote: »

Think you'll find it was more to do with yet another of your blanket claims

Trying to defend the indefensible. Uber is a technology company - and at its core, an app developer with a platform offered by way of that application.

Spook_ie wrote: »

I'm getting fed up of doing all the research for you and you still can't name 4 companies.

Research? A jabus, Go and have a lie down for yerself then - or you'll tire yerself out.

...cos that's all thats going to happen. You can try and dress stuff up as 'blanket' this or that - they're my views.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Lost me somewhere in that!

I'll work with whatever regulations I'm required to, just as I'd expect anyone coming into the industry to.

That's grand but ride sharing is not taxi-ing. Taxi regulations exist for taxis. Ride sharing regulations are needed for ride sharing. I mean, they're not the same thing although without a shadow of a doubt, it will eat your lunch. Yet whilst it tucks into yer ham n cheese, they're still not the same thing.

end of the road · 12-06-2019 8:07pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

Listen to yourself. You question my honesty and truthfullness and my genuine desire for discussion? Good grief!
You stated quite clearly that it doesn't matter - yet you demand an answer to your question - even though it doesn't matter. HOW is this in the best interests of a genuine discussion on the topic. As I stated before, you are being petty minded. As regards what 'esteem' a few taxi drivers on here (and others in the naysayers camp) hold me in, I think I can live with that. There have been plenty here that have expressed a similar opinion. Ironically (given that you question my motives in posting here), they're not in any way as motivated in terms of chiming in here as the naysayers. #selfinterest

he did not state that the names of the 4 companies as requested don't matter, they do. he wants the names as do i.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Trying to defend the indefensible. Uber is a technology company - and at its core, an app developer with a platform offered by way of that application.

Research? A jabus, Go and have a lie down for yerself then - or you'll tire yerself out. ...cos that's all thats going to happen. You can try and dress stuff up as 'blanket' this or that - they're my views.

judges in the ECJ who know the law, and who heard all possible evidence from all interested parties, say uber is a transport company, therefore it is a transport company. that's it. done, finito. as i said if you have a problem with that then get the money together and challenge the ruling.

makeorbrake wrote: »

That's grand but ride sharing is not taxi-ing. Taxi regulations exist for taxis. Ride sharing regulations are needed for ride sharing. I mean, they're not the same thing although without a shadow of a doubt, it will eat your lunch. Yet whilst it tucks into yer ham n cheese, they're still not the same thing.

ride sharing is still the operation of a public service vehicle however. the regulations that exist do so for public service vehicles. if you are taking a random passenger from a to b and charging a fare, you are operating a public transport service and your vehicle is a public service vehicle.

makeorbrake · 12-06-2019 8:21pm

end of the road wrote: »

he did not state that the names of the 4 companies as requested don't matter, they do. he wants the names as do i.

Has someone been taken hostage? as I see we have a list of demands getting touted around? Again, one more guy engaging in pettiness and semantics. Go back and re-read. He said the consideration as a whole didn't matter and I agreed with him.
If you're being any way genuine about this aspect of the discussion (which you're not right now), you'll acknowledge that the discussion centered on whether the addition of an app to ridesharing and taxi-ing was innovative. That's all that's to it. Leave the pettiness and semantics aside.

end of the road wrote: »

judges in the ECJ who know the law, and who heard all possible evidence from all interested parties, say uber is a transport company, therefore it is a transport company. that's it. done, finito. as i said if you have a problem with that then get the money together and challenge the ruling.

And yet, judges are just people. Those aren't the findings in other jurisdictions. To my point, it's political. You don't agree - that's fine. Park it up - or come back and say the same and Ill come back and refute it. ..whichever.

end of the road wrote: »

ride sharing is still the operation of a public service vehicle however. the regulations that exist do so for public service vehicles. if you are taking a random passenger from a to b and charging a fare, you are operating a public transport service and your vehicle is a public service vehicle.

It may do - but no matter. They are not the same thing and ride sharing deserves its own regulation.

end of the road · 12-06-2019 8:30pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

Has someone been taken hostage? as I see we have a list of demands getting touted around? Again, one more guy engaging in pettiness and semantics. Go back and re-read. He said the consideration as a whole didn't matter and I agreed with him.
If you're being any way genuine about this aspect of the discussion (which you're not right now), you'll acknowledge that the discussion centered on whether the addition of an app to ridesharing and taxi-ing was innovative. That's all that's to it. Leave the pettiness and semantics aside.

And yet, judges are just people. Those aren't the findings in other jurisdictions. To my point, it's political. You don't agree - that's fine. Park it up - or come back and say the same and Ill come back and refute it. ..whichever.

It may do - but no matter. They are not the same thing and ride sharing deserves its own regulation.

ride sharing does not deserve or need it's own regulation. the regulations for public service vehicles deal with it perfectly. ride sharing is still the operation and use of a public service vehicle for the carriage of passengers for money.

makeorbrake · 12-06-2019 8:32pm

end of the road wrote: »

ride sharing does not deserve or need it's own regulation. the regulations for public service vehicles deal with it perfectly. ride sharing is still the operation and use of a public service vehicle for the carriage of passengers for money.

In your opinion. I don't agree.

Spook_ie · 12-06-2019 9:07pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

Listen to yourself. You question my honesty and truthfullness and my genuine desire for discussion? Good grief!
You stated quite clearly that it doesn't matter - yet you demand an answer to your question - even though it doesn't matter. HOW is this in the best interests of a genuine discussion on the topic. As I stated before, you are being petty minded. As regards what 'esteem' a few taxi drivers on here (and others in the naysayers camp) hold me in, I think I can live with that. There have been plenty here that have expressed a similar opinion. Ironically (given that you question my motives in posting here), they're not in any way as motivated in terms of chiming in here as the naysayers. #selfinterest

Trying to defend the indefensible. Uber is a technology company - and at its core, an app developer with a platform offered by way of that application.

Research? A jabus, Go and have a lie down for yerself then - or you'll tire yerself out. ...cos that's all thats going to happen. You can try and dress stuff up as 'blanket' this or that - they're my views.

That's grand but ride sharing is not taxi-ing. Taxi regulations exist for taxis. Ride sharing regulations are needed for ride sharing. I mean, they're not the same thing although without a shadow of a doubt, it will eat your lunch. Yet whilst it tucks into yer ham n cheese, they're still not the same thing.

You're nothing more than a snake oil salesman, full of promises but short on anything else.

makeorbrake · 12-06-2019 9:27pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

You're nothing more than a snake oil salesman, full of promises but short on anything else.

Well that was a useful contribution to the discussion. Very enlightening.:(

n97 mini · 12-06-2019 9:31pm

@makeorbrake, it's pointless trying to argue for Uber on boards, there are too many taxi drivers and union types who'll slap you down.

Just keep doing what you're doing and avail of ride-sharing when you can. I'm regularly in the US and use Uber and Lyft all the time. They're fantastic.

I can't remember when I last used a taxi in Ireland. As a rule they're a last resort. As Michael Collins said, our best weapon is our refusal.

Spook_ie · 12-06-2019 9:57pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

Well that was a useful contribution to the discussion. Very enlightening.:(

And very truthful.

makeorbrake · 12-06-2019 9:59pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

And very truthful.

Probably,if you take a fistful of mind-altering pills and wash it down with a mouthful of bucky - it might seem 'truthful' then. Otherwise, not so much.

usernamegoes · 12-06-2019 10:33pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Lost me somewhere in that!

I'll work with whatever regulations I'm required to, just as I'd expect anyone coming into the industry to. As it stands at the moment new entrants who want a taxi license are restricted to WATs or WAH's. The NTA may change that when they get to their proposed 10%, however, if the NTA decided that at some stage in the future that I had to have a WAT or WAH, then I would comply.

I would object strenuously if this were something expected of me to comply with within a year as the costs already incurred in replacing my last vehicle haven't as yet been recouped and nothing as yet to finance the next vehicle, so I'm really not sure what you're trying to point out!

Yeah, you'd object if you had to comply but don't mind if others do because it helps you minimize competition and pretend you actually care about wheelchair users as long as it's other paying for it.

Spook_ie · 12-06-2019 11:35pm

usernamegoes wrote: »

Yeah, you'd object if you had to comply but don't mind if others do because it helps you minimize competition and pretend you actually care about wheelchair users as long as it's other paying for it.

Depends on the timescale given, as I said if it were phased in it wouldn't be so much of a deal, but as you ( I think it was you) said in a year then no I would be very much against it.

Of course there would also be the problem of finding 15000 + WATs in such a time frame but let's not worry about practicalities.

Nermal · 12-06-2019 11:46pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

This isn't like buying widgets.

The cry of vested interests everywhere, 'my industry is special'.

Spook_ie · 12-06-2019 11:50pm

Nermal wrote: »

The cry of vested interests everywhere, 'my industry is special'.

Don't see that, do see regulation for all or regulation for none.

makeorbrake · 13-06-2019 12:05am

Spook_ie wrote: »

Don't see that, do see regulation for all or regulation for none.

Or regulation that's fitting and doesn't stifle innovation.

end of the road · 13-06-2019 12:46am

makeorbrake wrote: »

Or regulation that's fitting and doesn't stifle innovation.

such regulation is exactly what we have. fitting and allows innovation.

makeorbrake · 13-06-2019 12:52am

end of the road wrote: »

such regulation is exactly what we have. fitting and allows innovation.

For ride sharing? Evidently that's not the case as there is practically no ride sharing in Ireland.

Spook_ie · 13-06-2019 1:29am

usernamegoes wrote: »

Yeah, you'd object if you had to comply but don't mind if others do because it helps you minimize competition and pretend you actually care about wheelchair users as long as it's other paying for it.

The latest I found so far from the Dail
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2018-04-18/212/

The regulation of the small public service vehicle (SPSV) industry is a matter for the National Transport Authority (NTA) under the provisions of the Taxi Regulation Act 2013.

In order to support an increase in the number of wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs) in Ireland's SPSV fleet, licences for new taxis or hackneys will only be granted in respect of WAVs. This requirement was introduced in 2010.

To supplement this measure, the NTA administers a WAV Grant Scheme, which offers grants on a sliding scale from €2,500 to €7,500. The set amounts awarded by grants through this scheme aim to align with the cost difference in purchasing a WAV or converting a vehicle to fulfill the WAV requirements. This scheme is open to all SPSV drivers, with grants offered on a first-come-first-served basis.

The share of WAVs in our SPSV fleet is currently 8%. We are on trajectory towards meeting our goal of a 10% share by 2020. I remain committed to increasing the number of WAVs within our SPSV fleet and supporting the NTA in the administration of the WAV Grant Scheme.

In relation to your question on the number of accessible taxis available in Ireland, I have referred your question to the NTA for direct reply to you. Please advise my private office if you do not receive a response within 10 working days.

Perhaps all the statements from those who think they are in the know should direct their criticism at the government, now I don't know when they get to their 10% figure if they'll start to release saloon plates or not, but if they do then I would expect them to be restricted in number to ensure that the ratio of WATs doesn't fall below 8 or 9% before they only allow WATs again

AndrewJRenko · 13-06-2019 8:09am

makeorbrake wrote: »

Eh, yeah. And you'll be the judge of that I suppose.:rolleyes:

Yeah, me and the taxi regulator.

makeorbrake wrote: »

You're being totally obtuse in trying to support the unsupportable. They are app developers with an app based platform that facilitate self employed people to go out and work on a gig basis.

That's nothing like the dummy apps you were going to throw it in with and it doesn't make them subcontractors either (despite what some eurocrats claim).

Are you changing your tune now? You claimed they were 'technology companies' because they operate an app - are you still standing over this industry-changing claim?

usernamegoes wrote: »

But, you could still do your job if you complied with the regulation. Same as anyone else who would like to become a taxi driver but doesn't have a WAV could become one if they complied with the regulation. This was the logic used earlier in this thread.

Seems unfair regulation works when its unfair in your favour. :rolleyes:

The difference is that your suggestion is just silly, for a whole range of reasons.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Has someone been taken hostage? as I see we have a list of demands getting touted around? Again, one more guy engaging in pettiness and semantics. Go back and re-read. He said the consideration as a whole didn't matter and I agreed with him.
If you're being any way genuine about this aspect of the discussion (which you're not right now), you'll acknowledge that the discussion centered on whether the addition of an app to ridesharing and taxi-ing was innovative. That's all that's to it. Leave the pettiness and semantics aside.

And yet, judges are just people. Those aren't the findings in other jurisdictions. To my point, it's political. You don't agree - that's fine. Park it up - or come back and say the same and Ill come back and refute it. ..whichever.

It may do - but no matter. They are not the same thing and ride sharing deserves its own regulation.

I'm seeing a trend here where you make up claims (four companies, tech companies etc) and fail to support them when challenged. Any chance of having an evidence-based discussion?

Nermal wrote: »

The cry of vested interests everywhere, 'my industry is special'.

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.

makeorbrake · 13-06-2019 2:02pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Are you changing your tune now? You claimed they were 'technology companies' because they operate an app - are you still standing over this industry-changing claim?

No, I'm not. They're still a technology company. They're based in silicon valley just in case that escaped your attention.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The difference is that your suggestion is just silly, for a whole range of reasons.

For one reason, right? Because his opinion doesn't match up with yours.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm seeing a trend here where you make up claims (four companies, tech companies etc) and fail to support them when challenged. Any chance of having an evidence-based discussion?

And I am seeing a trend here also. Three of you now being deliberately obtuse about something that in the greater context of the discussion makes no earthly difference.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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.

Why should your champagne socialism come into a discussion like this? A 'race to the bottom' my hole. Irish taxi's have been notorious for years - and not for these 'standards' you speak of. Consumers are being deprived of an innovative approach - as are the driving public (in terms of the ability to offer it) to appease taxi drivers.
As regards your living wage - if ride sharing has that impact, its quite simple. Go do something else. That's what the rest of us have to do in other industries when they get disrupted.

end of the road · 13-06-2019 2:31pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

No, I'm not. They're still a technology company. They're based in silicon valley just in case that escaped your attention.

For one reason, right? Because his opinion doesn't match up with yours.

And I am seeing a trend here also. Three of you now being deliberately obtuse about something that in the greater context of the discussion makes no earthly difference.

Why should your champagne socialism come into a discussion like this? A 'race to the bottom' my hole. Irish taxi's have been notorious for years - and not for these 'standards' you speak of. Consumers are being deprived of an innovative approach - as are the driving public (in terms of the ability to offer it) to appease taxi drivers.
As regards your living wage - if ride sharing has that impact, its quite simple. Go do something else. That's what the rest of us have to do in other industries when they get disrupted.

nobody is being deprived of anything innovative. the aps exist to allow the ordering of a spsv. people can work gig economy as long as they abide by the regulations. we are not going back to the days of any old car providing an spsv. it's gone, over, finished. ride sharing happens in ireland. uber operates in ireland.

makeorbrake · 13-06-2019 3:25pm

end of the road wrote: »

nobody is being deprived of anything innovative. the aps exist to allow the ordering of a spsv. people can work gig economy as long as they abide by the regulations. we are not going back to the days of any old car providing an spsv. it's gone, over, finished. ride sharing happens in ireland. uber operates in ireland.

This is like the Goebbels Ministry of Information. Ask irish people if they can participate in ride sharing here - as a driver or as a customer. The answer is no.

Applying taxi regulation to ride sharing stifles innovation.

We can keep going round in circles on this. I'm not looking to change your mind (!!) - far from it. But keep claiming black is white and I'll keep correcting you. Quite happy to agree to disagree and park it up - but up to you.(se).

kippy · 13-06-2019 3:54pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

This is like the Goebbels Ministry of Information. Ask irish people if they can participate in ride sharing here - as a driver or as a customer. The answer is no.

Applying taxi regulation to ride sharing stifles innovation.

We can keep going round in circles on this. I'm not looking to change your mind (!!) - far from it. But keep claiming black is white and I'll keep correcting you. Quite happy to agree to disagree and park it up - but up to you.(se).

Look,
There's absolutely nothing innovative about "ride sharing" as you call it. There's nothing stopping someone ride sharing at the moment apart from those who want to offer it for reward being in a shaky area insurance wise.

Plenty ride sharing going on around the place long before there were people doing it for reward.

Uber

Comments