Uber

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yeah, disrupt is cool and trendy, and avoids the long term thinking about how these moves impact society at large and who really benefits in the long run.

Disruption happens as a market reacts to an innovation. Whether you classify it as 'cool and trendy' is neither here nor there. That there are societal impacts from technological changes, good and bad - of course there are.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm not sure I see the connection between training and 'not accessing tax services'. Doctors get loads of training, but people only go to the doctor when they have to. It's kinda the same for taxi services.

You're suggesting that taxi services are an upgrade by comparison with ride sharing services as a result of 'training'. If that's the case, why (in markets that have not tried to suppress ride sharing) have people made the switch en-masse to ride sharing?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

A trained driver knows that one of the customer rights is 'quiet enjoyment of their journey', unlike the bus driver or shop worker desperate to supplement their income from their retail zero hours contract.

Shouldn't people themselves be the judge of that? After every ride share, I'm prompted to review. I can also review the experiences of others as regards a particular driver - a feature which proves to be useful. Drivers get the feedback.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Every new taxi licence for the past four or five years is indeed for a wheelchair accessible vehicle under the scheme where the cost is subsidised by the State. It's a fairly smart way of moving towards a fully accessible fleet - just one of the measures that would be undermined by letting Uber loose..

Designed in as a barrier to entry and not the altruism you make it out to be.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Except this isn't 'industry disruption'. Uber drivers don't do anything better than existing drivers. They only thing they disrupt is regulation, and the possibility of making a decent living wage.

That's not true. If you think it's not an advantage to an economy and it's people to facilitate the gig economy, then you are mistaken. It makes for a far more agile and efficient economy. It provides the potential for a more efficient use of existing resources (human and car fleet).

The ability of someone to go out and bootstrap themselves up - working a few additional hours as a time that suits them, on their own terms - is excellent. I've met students who have borrowed a car for the holidays to work. I've met guys that were simply driving in the same direction and switched on the app to earn a few extra quid. Those are not one offs - that's on an ongoing basis (and of course, that's not in Ireland).

makeorbrake wrote: »

I use "disrupt" rather than "undermine" - but if you've got skin in the game, I can see how you may be aggrieved.

you don't need to have skin in the game to be concerned that treating uber differently to any other cars transporting people for money in return would cause issues.

makeorbrake wrote: »

If 'training' is to such a high standard, then why are people not accessing taxi services? Do you mean the training to talk absolute ****e for the duration of the trip?

because they have busses, their own car, trains, etc. if they are accessing taxis

makeorbrake wrote: »

Is every single taxi wheelchair accessible?

almost i believe. the fleet is getting there.

makeorbrake wrote: »

I get it but in today's world, industries are being constantly disrupted. Upskill/retrain and move on.

upskill and retrain isn't always viable or cost effective either financially or otherwise. people should not have to upskill or retrain because of a company which expects to be given an unfair market advantage, via being treated differently to other similar operations because it has a few differences and calls itself ride sharing rather then taxi, which in my experience have been happy to provide ride sharing if a number of people are going to places along the route where the longest traveler is going. uber can compete in ireland, it just has to actually compete within the rules like anyone else.

end of the road wrote: »

you don't need to have skin in the game to be concerned that treating uber differently to any other cars transporting people for money in return would cause issues.

You mean treating uber differently by going out of your way to block uber drivers from tapping in to the market - as the regulator has done on behalf of taxi-drivers? Consumer always comes first.

end of the road wrote: »

because they have busses, their own car, trains, etc. if they are accessing taxis

no idea what point you're making there..

end of the road wrote: »

upskill and retrain isn't always viable or cost effective either financially or otherwise.

It's a fact of life. I'm not suggesting it's easy - but most industries and most people are going to be faced with it (or have been already). Some industries shouldn't have protectionism in place and not others - that's not equitable.

end of the road wrote: »

people should not have to upskill or retrain because of a company which expects to be given an unfair market advantage, via being treated differently to other similar operations because it has a few differences and calls itself ride sharing rather then taxi, which in my experience have been happy to provide ride sharing if a number of people are going to places along the route where the longest traveler is going. uber can compete in ireland, it just has to actually compete within the rules like anyone else.

And in taking this stance, you are throwing out the opportunity for society to derive the benefit from ride sharing. As above, you're dictating to consumers as to what service they want. That's not how markets are supposed to work.

Above someone makes the point that taxi drivers are better trained, better cars better standard. I don't agree that there's such a difference but it should be up to the consumer to decide which is better for them. Markets tend to be efficient that way.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Definitely a major factor, yes (but not the only one).
However, who are you to dictate what service I choose to use? Market forces and supply and demand dictate the price of everything.

i'm not dictating anything. you can use whatever service you like. however the service provider does not have a god given right to have the market organised in their favour at the expence of others, which from what i can see uber expects to happen. thankfully ireland have so far said no . uber can come here if it wants, nothing or nobody is stopping them apart from themselves, because again from what i can see, they don't want to actually compete.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Thanks at least for the admission that it is a deliberate blocking exercise. Otherwise, of course it matters! You want me as a consumer to discern between what you believe is a 'serious' driver and a 'time waster'? Give me a break. If the driver reviews badly, I don't have to use said driver and said service.

it's nothing of the sort. i admitted nothing. there are no barriers to entry, people entering simply have to abide by regulations is all. if those people find that a barrier then they aren't required or needed as there are plenty of others who have no problem in abiding by regulations.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Think about what you're suggesting. You are TELLING consumers what their wants/needs are. That's not how that dynamic works.

i have thought about it. i am not telling consumers what their wants and needs are. they are saying themselves that they want standards hence we have the regulations we have. all based on the consumer's wants and needs.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Then pack up and do something else.

often that is not viable as already explained.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Protectionism never works and it's not good for society as a whole either.

there is no protectionism. however if we were to go your way we would have a market which is rigged in favour of 1 operator which in itself could be potentially classed as protectionism.

makeorbrake wrote: »

As regards less money, less spend, you're mistaken. It's a case of more efficient spend of the same pool of money - making for a more efficient society and economy - which in turn benefits as it competes with neighbouring economies.

nope. if someone has less money, then they aren't going to spend it on as much, hence the economy loses out. meanwhile it is the likes of uber making their money and taking probably most of it back home (which they are entitled to do) but it is also not so good for the economy.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Which you've already admitted have been willfully constructed as a barrier to their entry into the market.

no i haven't. they have not been constructed as a barrier to entry. those who are not willing to compete on a level playing field have decided of their own accord that they are a barrier to entry. for others the regulations and standards are not a problem and are not a barrier to entry.

Ah yes, the glorious market of supply and demand. So why have Uber to spend billions subsidising rides? Is it because normal rules of supply and demand don’t infact support their model?

magicbastarder wrote: »

Uh, lots of prices are regulated, not just taxi prices.

That doesn't make it right - and it doesn't make it in the general interests of the consumer. The regulator is acting in a protectionist role for those of you driving taxis.

end of the road wrote: »

i'm not dictating anything. you can use whatever service you like. however the service provider does not have a god given right to have the market organised in their favour at the expence of others, which from what i can see uber expects to happen. thankfully ireland have so far said no . uber can come here if it wants, nothing or nobody is stopping them apart from themselves, because again from what i can see, they don't want to actually compete.

People are NOT free to choose whatever service they like. You keep hiding behind the skirt tails of the regulator. Dumping ride sharing in with taxi regulation is just plain wrong.

end of the road wrote: »

it's nothing of the sort. i admitted nothing. there are no barriers to entry, people entering simply have to abide by regulations is all. if those people find that a barrier then they aren't required or needed as there are plenty of others who have no problem in abiding by regulations.

That's totally untrue. There is a major barrier to entry that has been consciously put in place to block ride sharing (and to appease you guys...err, I mean taxi drivers). How many jurisdictions have this very same regulation (precisely this regulation)?

end of the road wrote: »

i have thought about it. i am not telling consumers what their wants and needs are. they are saying themselves that they want standards hence we have the regulations we have. all based on the consumer's wants and needs.

You've had quite a few people say on this thread that they want to use ride sharing services and that believe this is protectionism. If we put up a poll on boards (by agreement in terms of how it's worded), you're confident that it will carry and boardsters will vote in favour of not having ride sharing available to them?

end of the road wrote: »

often that is not viable as already explained.

What sort of fantasy land are you living in? If I worked for Dell a few years back and they turned around to me and said, we're making you redundant as we're not competitive in Ireland in manufacturing, you think I could have turned around to them and said 'eh, no you can't - It's not 'feasible' for me'?

I empathise that having to find a new means of employment is difficult but these are challenges we all face in today's world. I've had to change my line of work a few times already and my working life has a bit to go just yet.

end of the road wrote: »

there is no protectionism. however if we were to go your way we would have a market which is rigged in favour of 1 operator which in itself could be potentially classed as protectionism.

Sure there is. There's appeasement of taxi drivers in play - which equals protectionism. As regards want something 'rigged', ridesharing deserves its own regulation - and yes, that will affect you taxi men - and Im sorry - but that's just the reality.

end of the road wrote: »

nope. if someone has less money, then they aren't going to spend it on as much, hence the economy loses out. meanwhile it is the likes of uber making their money and taking probably most of it back home (which they are entitled to do) but it is also not so good for the economy.

This is classic paddy-nomics. If I have €500 to spend in a week and by switching from taxi to ride sharing service, i end up with more in my pocket, it will be spent elsewhere. The consumer wins, the economy wins - and the economy is more competitive off the back of it.
As regards uber making money, they provide a service they should be paid for it. We decided in Ireland a long time ago we'd have an open economy - if they want to repatriate that money, that's their business. There's nothing stopping another company offering the same service. As I mentioned, I don't use uber where I live. I use indriver. That's the beauty of competition.

end of the road wrote: »

no i haven't. they have not been constructed as a barrier to entry. those who are not willing to compete on a level playing field have decided of their own accord that they are a barrier to entry. for others the regulations and standards are not a problem and are not a barrier to entry.

You talk of a 'level playing field' when ride sharing and taxi'ing are not the same thing. There should be separate regulation for each of them. If it was a level playing field, why can't I get an uber/lyft/etc. in Ireland.

end of the road wrote: »

the regulator has done no such thing. nobody is specifically blocked from entering the market. some are choosing not to enter which is their decision.

That's incorrect ..and lets just agree to disagree or else we'll keep going round in circles. I'm quite happy that you won't change your mind on that - but likewise, I won't be changing mine either.

end of the road wrote: »

some industries have to have protectionism in place to insure they actually can exist to do what is a necessary job, but is not viable via market forces. the taxi industry however is not an industry that has protectionism, but has regulation, as do many things in life, which is massively equitable and vital.

Good regulation supports innovation - bad regulation the opposite. Taxi drivers are being appeased by the regulator - resulting in what amounts to protectionism.

end of the road wrote: »

ride sharing can happen. it already does from time to time with existing taxis. the person who wants to do a few hours here and there also can do that if they wish by going through the relevant channels. so no, i'm not throwing out the benefits of ride sharing, it can already happen.

Rubbish. We have an existing car fleet of cars which pass a regular road-worthiness test. The regulation consciously cuts off the vast majority of that car fleet (and accompanying drivers) from facilitating ride sharing as it was originally intended.
If the regulator has not stymied innovation, WHERE is the ride sharing? If you're going to say 'because they choose not to, then how come more progressive countries have it? Ireland of the high standards...:rolleyes:

end of the road wrote: »

not always. and no, it shouldn't be simply left up to the consumer to decide for example, what standard of vehicle they get into. vehicles transporting people for money should have their standards regulated and those which do not fit that should be prohibited from operating, or slowly removed from circulation as time goes on where they meet a current standard but not a future one.

I see. So responsible you is going to dictate to me what I want in terms of a service? I don't want to use a taxi ever again. I want to access ride sharing services. Cars pass a stringent test here - they're road worthy.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Ah yes, the glorious market of supply and demand. So why have Uber to spend billions subsidising rides? Is it because normal rules of supply and demand don’t infact support their model?

Markets are efficient. If their model is unsustainable, then they will fail - simple as that. Uber doesn't need to be the only show in town - I use ride sharing every day of the week but have hardly used uber in 2019.

magicbastarder wrote: »

ah yes, the market always acts in the interests of the consumer. how many people still believe this?

I didn't say that I wasn't in favour of regulation. However, I'm not in favour of the irish form of regulation which currently achieves three things:

1. Puts Ireland behind the curve in terms of embracing innovation.

2. Deprives irish consumers the choice they deserve.

3. Achieves 1 and 2 above by appeasing taxi drivers.

n97 mini wrote: »

Those that oppose Uber (or Lyft)... Have you ever used them, and if so was it more than once?

Who gives a feck if it's subsidised... It's not your money that's doing the subsidising. Make hay while the sun shines.
.

So we should change the model of regulation to suit an unsustainable business model?

n97 mini wrote: »

We've had plenty of taxi scandals down through the years, from almost 200 illegals most recently, to another chap being told he couldn't carry women in the front, to the monk, the penguin, etc, being given licences as they had nothing else. So don't claim taxi drivers are squeaky clean
.

Just exactly how much worse do you want to make it?

makeorbrake wrote: »

No, they're two different things. It's quite common when something totally innovative emerges that it either needs its own regulation or an update of existing regulations. Ride sharing is not taxi-ing. It needs its own regulation.

Ride-sharing is cheap taxi-ing - cheap because it avoids a couple of decades work to bring up the standard of drivers and standard of vehicles. It is clearly unsustainable. Why should regulators and legislators put months of effort into place to accommodate a bubble that is bound to burst? They would be better spending their time to continue to develop the standards and capacity of the current fleet.

makeorbrake wrote: »

He's given a list of reasons why this 'high standards professional service, fully trained driver malarkey hasn't proven to be the case down through the years. A few months ago, I stepped into a taxi as I couldn't get an uber or indriver. The driver proceeded to take the scenic route home. I have not been in a taxi since then.

So one driver did something bad therefore the whole model of industry regulation is unnecessary? My GP missed a diagnosis once, so should we stop regulating doctors and let anyone do it?


The good news is that once you report that driver to the regulator showing the receipt, they will be able to investigate and take serious action. One driver was fined €2k for refusing to take a passenger with a guide dog some years back. These guys don't mess around. You did report them, right?

makeorbrake wrote: »

It is cheaper than taking a taxi - yes. But it is NOT taxi-ing. If I have a need to drive between points A and B, I should be in a position to open up an app (be it Uber or something else), switch it on - and ride share as a driver or as a passenger. That's NOT taxi-ing.

There's nothing innovative about ordering by app. Loads of taxi companies have ordering by app available. Hailo/MyTaxi have been doing it for years now, and others have come on board too. There's nothing innovative about drivers choosing their own working hours. This has been the way the industry worked for years. Some people worked nights, some people did early morning airport runs - horses for courses.


The only 'innovation' with Uber and their peers is avoiding regulation - going back 10-20 years where drivers were using their own family cars for taxiing. The industry regulators have been working to improve standards for these ten years, and you want to push back all the progress in quality.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Now, HOW is that unsustainable? Uber may be unsustainable but if it is, it will fizzle out. Ride sharing generally is totally sustainable - that's the whole point.

Taxi'ing has become unsustainable in parts of the world and that seems to be the concern of most here for whatever reason...

makeorbrake wrote: »

Because they have a duty to citizens to ensure that the country benefits from innovation. Ride sharing generally is no 'bubble'. Uber is not the only show in town.

It's unsustainable because the current business model is barely sustainable. Cutting fares by 40% or more makes it unsustainable. This might work for a while as long as Uber investors are happy to subsisdise, or as long as there is a queue of suckers desperate to get into the sector, but it is not workable in the long term. It's like 'suicide bids' in the construction sector, where builders are squeezed to submit unsustainable bids, then they crash out, and the project ends up costing much more in the long term. Cheapest is not always best.

makeorbrake wrote: »

With indriver, I don't have to check if the driver is going the scenic route. The difference is that your GP didn't try to deliberately %!£$ you! - whereas in my case the taxi-man did try to %3$" me.


Yeah? Well here's the thing. 1. He got paid what I told him he was getting paid (although I didn't much enjoy the argument that necessitated ) and 2. I already presented you with the solution - I don't and won't take a taxi - I'll use ride sharing as I do 99.9% of the time already in any case.

It sounds like your incident didn't happen in Ireland if your alternative is Uber. If overcharging does happen in Ireland, the driver will be severly penalised when this is reported to the Regulator. If he tries it again, he'll lose his licence. This industry is severely regulated - just talk to any driver about the regulator to see their reaction.

I'm pretty sure uber are in the Irish market...
(my sister uses them every time she's in Dublin)
Its just an ordinary cab shows up.. Because if you offer a cab or taxi (or limo) service in Ireland it has to be a public service vehicle does the work...
Incidentally, I assume uber don't pay for the motor /taxi insurance for the trip, because regular car insurance doesn't include driving for hire or reward... If they covered that it'd probably be worth individuals getting psv licences, and car inspected,just to drive on Friday and Saturday nights...

I don't think the public service licence costs are a bar to entry or service,
I've seen great taxis in Ireland, and I've been in some right bangers.. And I've been in similar ubers in the UK... (they were all licensed hackney's just using uber as a booking agent).

Markcheese wrote: »

How many uber cars and drivers out there in the UK and States are just "seeing if anyone wants to share the car on their way home"?

Sure, but it doesn't have to be. That's where progressive regulation comes in. There's been little discussion in that context as many of the naysayers have a vested interest in keeping ride sharing out across the board (not just uber and their current implementation).

That said, the world doesn't revolve around the UK and U.S. - there are other jurisdictions on this planet. As I mentioned in previous posts, I've regularly come across people that just switch the app on when they're driving in a certain direction.

Markcheese wrote: »

I reckon uber is just a way for an app to get below minimum wage drivers to further an Internet companies ambitions... And no matter how lofty their blurb is, have a look behind it..

Nobody forces anyone to drive under the Uber platform. Would it be healthy if there only was one platform - absolutely not. Again, if there was progressive regulation, this could be a consideration.