Uber

Spook_ie wrote: »

It's using the uncalibrated GPS function to trace a route and work out a fare, funny that's very similar to what a calibrated taximeter does, go figure.

Yeah, similar but it is not a taximeter. So that's one point of difference already.

How could they be non professional drivers they would have sat a test regarding SPSV laws, Disability Handling, Driver and passenger rights and responsibilities etc. and have a shiny ID on the dash board. Talk about moving goal posts.

Grand, ridesharing should not have to do that. That's two.

Because it is relevant to how Uber drivers are likely to supplement their income, to an extent I wouldn't blame them but I'd still report them.
EDIT MISSED THIS ONE

So are hackney drivers according to you though. This point was in response to the differences. If hackney drivers do it does that mean they are the same as taxis? What's the point of saying this in the context of a discussion about the differences between taxis, limos, hackneys and ridesharing?

And the reason it doesn't exist is because we have an unlimited liability in regard to passengers, you seem to think that Uber etc. $1,000,000 coverage would be sufficient to cover for the costs of an accident. I already gave you in an earlier post people getting multi million euro settlements when they end up needing care for life, perhaps you think they should only get sufficient care for half that and then maybe euthenised.

It doesn't exist because it's illegal. I have no problem with requiring drivers of ridesharing to have ridesharing insurance with no liability cap. Problem solved.

I am saying that the current regulations regarding hackneys are quite suited to ride sharing with a minimal adjustment to SPSV driver licensing, just as they are so suited to Uber and other apps in London, Manchester, Paris, Berlin etc.

I have pointed out various reasons they're different. By the same argument we could say hackneys could be taxis with small changes like having them have a meter and a roof sign.

Maybe I am. I think the driver should require I license. Not the vehicle. New or NTA works for me. {/quote]
So again you want Uber etc. to regulate the vehicles rather than a government department set up specifically to carry out that mandate, keeping in mind that all these app companies are profit driven, how do you think that will pan out?

Well they would be regulated by the government reasonably by having an NCT where required. I'm happy with that, if good enough for most cars on the road. No one would be forced to use them if they didn't trust the company.

I know it was a response to EoTR's post but I'd love to charge more than I'm allowed, however, the meter won't let me put my own rate in, you know the maximum regulated fare order that taxis follow.

Yeah, another difference between taxis and ridesharing. Taxis aren't allowed charge more than the maximum fare. Ridesharing should be.

Spook_ie wrote: »

When you actually think about it, a FreeNow customer means that if the fare is less than €17 a driver makes MORE money off the FreeNow app, so as I said it comes down (in my case ) to the confidence I have in the customer being there, but unlike surge pricing, which I assume is what you are trying to allude to, the customer isn't paying any extra. In fact if they use the old fashioned method of sticking an arm in the air they'll save them selves €2.

My reply was to ride-sharing drivers turning off the app to drive up prices and therefore the money they make, which is what the story linked to was about. Taxis do the same thing, albeit the money they make is at the expense of FreeNow (what a stupid name) rather than the customer.

As I said a few pages back, I have no problem with surge pricing based on actual demand. It's designed to get more drivers on the road to meet a temporary increase in demand, and in my experience usually doesn't last long. As I also if there's a surge on, I'll have another pint and wait for it to settle

makeorbrake wrote: »

I'd advise against. It would only encourage joe maxi's roaming the streets looking for fares - causing added congestion and burning up more fossil fuels whilst emitting pollutants. They do enough of that kind of thing already.

There's no speculative street roaming with the app based ride sharing approach. It's purely point A to point B.

That's the thing. I spoke to a former taxi driver a couple of years ago who had switched to Uber. He said that even though his hourly rate is less, his weekly pay is more, as he doesn't spend any time now cruising around fishing for fares. Nearly all of his driving now is fare paying.

Spook_ie wrote: »

If you use any kind of meter instead of agreeing a fare in advance, which is what n97 and others keep telling me that Uber etc. does then you are defacto operating with an uncalibrated taximeter, whether that uses GPS positioning or a mechanical measure.

The high court of england and wales has held that Uber's meter is not a taximeter. I know how much you respect court decisions on these matters.

Yet you said


Flip flop your position much?

I am confused on the point you're trying to make here? "Flip flop much"?

As I said it is a way that hackney drivers worked against the actual rules, as I would expect Ridesharing drivers to also do, either would get reported by me and hopefully prosecuted by the NTA and Gardai

Yeah, I'd report them too as I have taxis who refuse to fare unreasonably. It's not relevant to the argument! My point stands.

You mean commercial insurance then?

We'll it's hardly going to be charitable insurance. Yes, it would be specific insurance to cover ridesharing like they have in other countries that allow it.

Possibly, there are many similarities between the vehicle recommendations for taxis and hackneys, but luggage size is one that hackney to taxi would fall foul of, also the legal requirements would be different too

Are you saying that taxing is hackenying but for the false distinctions the legislation makes?

Again with the regulation by a profit driven company.:eek:

Virtually everything else in your life is regulated by a profit-driven company to one extent or another. I drive a car that is 171 so no NCT yet, the car was checked by VW and the garage before the sold it. They are profit-driven should I bring it in to be checked by someone in the NTA for me to feel safe?

I actually think that if ride-share were allowed to fluctuate prices then why not taxis?

I thought ridesharing was taxiing and taxiing was ridesharing?

They do. Peak times in taxis are higher. It's one the main differences between them in my view. When you hail a taxi, you want to know the rate is set before it stops. When you are going hackney, you negotiate. When you rideshare, you are never hailing them on the street you book with an app which displays the rate on the app and you decide if it works.

Taxiing is not ridesharing. They work differently.

Again you seem to be thinking that I'm comparing an SPSV Taxi to an SPSV Hackney to a proposed SPSV Ride-sharing, I'm not I'm saying that you don't need another category of SPSV Ride-share fits nicely under the umbrella of SPSV Hackneys, vehicle license, all of your proposals want to lessen the regulations in comparison to hackneys.

All the arguments for hackneys just want to lessen the requirements for taxis. You have been shown time and time again that risdesharing does not fit neatly into hackneying but you want to draw distinctions between taxis and hackneys but when anyone explains the differences between taxis and hackneys vs rideshare you say that's just less rules than taxiing or hackneying. It's a view that holds no water.

Spook_ie wrote: »

I have a problem with it being used in anything other than a taxi, especially as it is uncalibrated and unsealed, if Uber want in then Uber should (and so far does ) play by the regulations

The big issue with by-the-meter is that you don't know the fare until you get to your destination.

makeorbrake wrote: »

In which case, the guy goes round the long way.

In which case, the uustomer notes the difference between the actual fare and the estimated fare available from the regulator, reports the driver with a copy of the receipt and the driver gets a fine that convinces him that this isn't a good business tactic.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

In which case, the uustomer notes the difference between the actual fare and the estimated fare available from the regulator, reports the driver with a copy of the receipt and the driver gets a fine that convinces him that this isn't a good business tactic.

How many people will actually do that?

usernamegoes wrote: »

It's interesting to see how popular they are. Although, I wonder if they had have eased up on the protectionism in the taxi industry in San Fran and allowed the number of taxis to increase to the numbers required would this article be about all the new taxis increasing the traffic? Probably have been worse considering how inefficient taxis are. Maybe time to ban taxis from San Fran to help with the traffic?

Needless to say, Cities like San Fran will have traffic problems unless there are better ways to get around.

the article already is about all the new taxis increasing the traffic problems.

I've spent a lot of time in California and the traffic is nuts, all the way from San Francisco to LA (the worst on the planet) to San Diego.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's almost as if car-dominated transport planning doesn't really work.

I won't disagree. The major motor companies (eg GM) bought up a lot of the public transport and scrapped it. All well documented. And here we are.

magicbastarder wrote: »

Uber and Lyft are the ‘biggest contributors’ to San Francisco’s traffic congestion, study says

https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/8/18535627/uber-lyft-sf-traffic-congestion-increase-study

the headline is a little misleading - it seems that uber and lyft are responsible for most of the *increase* in traffic, rather than responsible for most traffic.

Can't say I am surprised - I was in Chicago last May and at most times the vast majority of the traffic was made up of Uber drivers, I kid you not.

You could clearly see the sticker/identifier on the windshield...heck, some drivers there have an RGB led-lit version of it you could probably see from the rings of Saturn

The service is insanely popular in parts of the US, I've seen few actual taxis there as opposed to NYC that's swarming with the yellow cabs; Talking to a couple of Uber drivers (when in Chicago...you know), they were saying they get loads of jobs at peak times, one of them even said there were "regulars" using the service daily to commute to and from work.

In Indianapolis, one driver said he'd get people to O'Hare airport, 200+ miles away, a few times a month...

end of the road wrote: »

the extortionate due to tfl black cab.
the black cab has it's fares regulated.

People want to avail of a more cost effective service. There's nothing wrong with that.

end of the road wrote: »

black cab drivers mostly don't complain about anything and everything either. just like any varient of taxi driver. there will always be exceptions of course.
lets not exaggerate in the aim of trying to big up uber.

Exaggerate? That's the posters experience. Others here have given their feedback that quality of service tends to be better via a ride sharing service.

makeorbrake wrote: »

People want to avail of a more cost effective service. There's nothing wrong with that.

i never said there was.
however, the more cost effective service should be that of it's own merrit, which uber isn't unfortunately.
it also had to be pointed out for clarity that the black cabs cannot decide their own fares, they are regulated by transport for london, so are essentially not allowed to compete.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Exaggerate? That's the posters experience. Others here have given their feedback that quality of service tends to be better via a ride sharing service.

yes, exaggerate. his claim was.

Talk to...
Topics
Regional
Adverts.ie
Boards.ie

search
Edit your avatar
end of the road 7
Notifications
Private messages
0
Followed threads
7
Visitor messages
0
Friend requests
0
Profile settings
Control panel
Appearance Settings
Edit your profile
Edit email & password
Find all my posts
Help
Mark all forums as read
Logout
My Forums
My Forums
You are not following any forums.
Click the "Follow Forum" button at the top of a forum to start following it.
Home Topics Motoring & Transport Commuting & Transport Uber
Post Reply
Unfollow


Page 33 of 33
« First
<
23
31
32
33
Go
View First Unread
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Rate Thread
28-07-2019, 19:48
#1281
n97 mini
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,977
Adverts | Friends
I've spent a lot of time in California and the traffic is nuts, all the way from San Francisco to LA (the worst on the planet) to San Diego.
n97 mini is offline Report Post
Reply with a quote Add this post to Multiquote Quick Reply Thank this post
28-07-2019, 20:51
#1282
AndrewJRenko
Registered User

AndrewJRenko's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 8,528
Adverts | Friends
Quote:
Originally Posted by n97 mini View Post
I've spent a lot of time in California and the traffic is nuts, all the way from San Francisco to LA (the worst on the planet) to San Diego.
It's almost as if car-dominated transport planning doesn't really work.
AndrewJRenko is offline Report Post
Reply with a quote Add this post to Multiquote Quick Reply
(2) thanks from:
Remove Your Thanks
DaCor, end of the road
28-07-2019, 20:54
#1283
n97 mini
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,977
Adverts | Friends
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewJRenko View Post
It's almost as if car-dominated transport planning doesn't really work.
I won't disagree. The major motor companies (eg GM) bought up a lot of the public transport and scrapped it. All well documented. And here we are.
n97 mini is offline Report Post
Reply with a quote Add this post to Multiquote Quick Reply
(2) thanks from:
Remove Your Thanks
AndrewJRenko, end of the road
25-09-2019, 23:34
#1284
usernamegoes
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 762
Adverts | Friends
https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/...ar-952724.html

Maybe now's the time for Uber-style ridesharing. Those who prefer professional driver can pay more for the expertise the rest of us can pay less for an amateur. :-)
usernamegoes is offline Report Post
Reply with a quote Add this post to Multiquote Quick Reply Thank this post
26-09-2019, 03:35
#1285
DaCor
Registered User

DaCor's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,386
Adverts | Friends
Here we go.... Again

I had a post typed up and deleted it. I just can't be arsed this time around.

If you want to know why Uber are not in widespread use, read the thread, it's all there. The first few pages should do as every argument is repeated ad nauseum
DaCor is online now Report Post
Reply with a quote Add this post to Multiquote Quick Reply Thank this post
26-09-2019, 19:20
#1286
usernamegoes
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 762
Adverts | Friends
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaCor View Post
Here we go.... Again

I had a post typed up and deleted it. I just can't be arsed this time around.

If you want to know why Uber are not in widespread use, read the thread, it's all there. The first few pages should do as every argument is repeated ad nauseum
Thanks bud. Yeah, read the thread convinced Uber-style ridesharing should be allowed particularly after the fare increase coming.
usernamegoes is offline Report Post
Reply with a quote Add this post to Multiquote Quick Reply Thank this post
Thanks from:
makeorbrake
27-09-2019, 11:21
#1287
H3llR4iser
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,388
Adverts | Friends
Quote:
Originally Posted by magicbastarder View Post
Uber and Lyft are the ‘biggest contributors’ to San Francisco’s traffic congestion, study says

https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/8/18...increase-study

the headline is a little misleading - it seems that uber and lyft are responsible for most of the *increase* in traffic, rather than responsible for most traffic.
Can't say I am surprised - I was in Chicago last May and at most times the vast majority of the traffic was made up of Uber drivers, I kid you not.

You could clearly see the sticker/identifier on the windshield...heck, some drivers there have an RGB led-lit version of it you could probably see from the rings of Saturn Big Grin

The service is insanely popular in parts of the US, I've seen few actual taxis there as opposed to NYC that's swarming with the yellow cabs; Talking to a couple of Uber drivers (when in Chicago...you know), they were saying they get loads of jobs at peak times, one of them even said there were "regulars" using the service daily to commute to and from work.

In Indianapolis, one driver said he'd get people to O'Hare airport, 200+ miles away, a few times a month...
H3llR4iser is offline Report Post
Reply with a quote Add this post to Multiquote Quick Reply Thank this post
Today, 09:21
#1288
magicbastarder
Moderator

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 25,239
Adverts | Friends
Mod: Cycling, ZTest
Uber reportedly tells its staff not to disclose potential crimes
Quote:
According to The Washington Post, a number of Uber's Special Investigations employees have come forward to reveal that they are forbidden from contacting the police or advising victims to pursue legal advice following an instance of assault.
https://www.engadget.com/2019/09/26/...afety-assault/
magicbastarder is offline Report Post
Reply with a quote Add this post to Multiquote Quick Reply
Thanks from:
Remove Your Thanks
end of the road
Today, 09:32
#1289
Sagats_knee
Registered User

Sagats_knee's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 30
Adverts | Friends
Here in London we use Uber regularly. It’s a great service, and cheaper than the extortionate black cab. The service is better, as Uber drivers tend not to moan and complain about everything like taxi drivers do. Not having to deal with the price or cash is also a big plus, and any issues with the trip Uber will usually refund you partially or in full.
Sagats_knee is offline Report Post
Reply with a quote Add this post to Multiquote Quick Reply Thank this post
Thanks from:
usernamegoes
Today, 11:09
#1290
end of the road
Registered User

Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 23,023
Adverts | Friends
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sagats_knee View Post
Here in London we use Uber regularly. It’s a great service, and cheaper than the extortionate black cab.
the extortionate due to tfl black cab.
the black cab has it's fares regulated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sagats_knee
The service is better, as Uber drivers tend not to moan and complain about everything like taxi drivers do.

now, given the poster isn't going to be able to show that taxi drivers as a whole tend to moan as claimed, then the poster's statement is an over exaggeration.

end of the road wrote: »

i never said there was.
however, the more cost effective service should be that of it's own merrit, which uber isn't unfortunately.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. Consumers obviously see merit in it as they use it in droves where it's available.

end of the road wrote: »

i never said there was.
yes, exaggerate. his claim was.

now, given the poster isn't going to be able to show that taxi drivers as a whole tend to moan as claimed, then the poster's statement is an over exaggeration.

It's incorrect to suggest that his experience has been 'exaggerated' if that's his experience. It's also the view of some others here who have had the same experience and provided similar feedback.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Z z z z z Uber again Z z z z z

Insightful. You have an issue with the discussion of 'uber' on a thread titled 'uber'. :rolleyes:

Spook_ie wrote: »

Z z z z makeorbrake again Z z z z

Classy

When trying to book an Uber for a scheduled time (and I've tried a few times over next couple of days to see), I only get an option for "Schedule Black" cab - is there a reason ordinary Uber cabs don't appear? I'm just doing standard dublin afternoon pick up type requests?