Uber

n97 mini · 13-07-2019 10:46pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Convicted criminals of certain offences can no longer apply for SPSV driver licenses, however, the Irish Constitution protects peoples right to work and there is the concept of not being punished twice for a crime, are you suggesting we should tear up or ignore the constitution or that someone convicted of some offences not against the person be barred from driving a taxi?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/37/section/30/enacted/en/html

I'm saying if you have a criminal record you can't drive for Uber, but you can drive a taxi.

Maybe that's unfair on criminals?

Spook_ie · 13-07-2019 10:50pm

Uber background check policy

At least one-year U.S. licensing history (if under 23 years old, must have at least three years licensing history).
A valid driver’s license and Motor Vehicle Record (MVR)
No major moving violations, such as DUIs or reckless driving, within the last seven years.
No more than three minor moving violations in the past three years, such as speeding tickets or failure to obey traffic laws.
A criminal record that does not include a conviction for a felony, violent crime, or sexual offense within the last seven years.

So you could still be driven around by a convicted criminal on Uber as long as they have been "clean" or not caught for 7 years.

Stephen15 · 13-07-2019 11:19pm

If you think the situation is bad with forgein national taxi drivers atm my bet Uber will be ten times worse

usernamegoes · 14-07-2019 1:02am

Spook_ie wrote: »

Uber background check policy

So you could still be driven around by a convicted criminal on Uber as long as they have been "clean" or not caught for 7 years.

Seems fair to me for non-serious crimes. Would you rather crucify them?

What's the rule with an taxi licence from the NTA?

Stephen15 wrote: »

If you think the situation is bad with forgein national taxi drivers atm my bet Uber will be ten times worse

What's the situation with the "foreign nationals?" Are you a taxi driver?

Spook_ie · 14-07-2019 4:18am

usernamegoes wrote: »

Seems fair to me for non-serious crimes. Would you rather crucify them?

What's the rule with an taxi licence from the NTA?

What's the situation with the "foreign nationals?" Are you a taxi driver?

Pretty much the same, it was n97 who reckons that Ireland has loads of convicted taxi drivers and Uber doesn't.

makeorbrake · 14-07-2019 4:26am

So long story short, the naysayers say better standards in terms of drivers and at worst there would be no difference. It's another non-point put to bed.

AndrewJRenko · 14-07-2019 10:57am

makeorbrake wrote: »

So long story short, the naysayers say better standards in terms of drivers and at worst there would be no difference. It's another non-point put to bed.

Uber have a vested interest in getting more and more drivers on the road. The NTA have no vested interest. I know who I'd prefer to be vetting drivers.

And again, there's no problem with Uber applying higher standards of their own, once they comply with the standard requirements that apply to everyone.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Look up "innovation" and the "sharing economy".

I looked up 'sharing economy' and found this - eight people sharing a studio apartment in Citywest using bunk beds in the living room.

https://twitter.com/RentalProperty8/status/1149342797205528576

All part of the American dream, eh?

makeorbrake · 14-07-2019 11:26am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Uber have a vested interest in getting more and more drivers on the road. The NTA have no vested interest. I know who I'd prefer to be vetting drivers.

They've been shown to implement higher standards (something they also have a vested interest in).

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And again, there's no problem with Uber applying higher standards of their own, once they comply with the standard requirements that apply to everyone

Have they broken any regulation here?

Yeah, in terms of vetting, I have not seen any argument from anyone in terms of implementing the very same vetting - so what gives?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I looked up 'sharing economy' and found this - eight people sharing a studio apartment in Citywest using bunk beds in the living room.
All part of the American dream, eh?

You really are something. So now you have an issue with Airbnb. Airbnb is used the world over - and as a concept it's excellent. The platform is exactly that - a platform. What you are referring to here is symptomatic of Dublin's housing crisis.

That crisis has been brought about by the negligence of irish politicians and civil servants (sound familiar?). Just so that there's clarity - they're IRISH. This has nothing to do with the yanks - it has nothing to do with airbnb.

The greater 'point' (feeble as it is) has to do with your own ideological hang ups. There's plenty wrong in the U.S. - but there are also things that you have to give them credit for. Amongst those is a pro business environment and one that encourages innovation. That's why we have this type of scenario.

I have not used airbnb that much - they tend to offer higher quality properties and experiences - and with that, prices. However, they also offer the opportunity to meet people where-ever you're travelling and get a far better insight into a place and a different experience by comparison to a hotel.

There is an extensive feedback system so it's unlikely that someone that rents a property or room in a property doesn't know what they're getting into. In the case of these that you list, it's unfortunate but that seems to be what they were prepared to take on. That's got nothing to do with Airbnb and everything to do with mismanagement politically and administratively in Ireland.

As regards the Sharing Economy generally, isn't it amazing that your full review only threw up negativity (that had nothing to do with those that enabled that type of sharing economy)? Here are some of the areas that the Sharing Economy is coming into play:

- Peer to Peer lending
- Car Sharing
- Ride Sharing
- Crowdfunding
- Co-working
- Freelancing

You lack all credibility in trying to diss an innovative, progressive approach just to try and clamber together some wayward argument.

Guy:Incognito · 14-07-2019 12:42pm

Would "ride sharing" not be that Im going to wexford in the morning so an app would allow other people going to wexford to carpool with me.

Uber isnt that, its an unlicensed taxi. You tell them where you want to go and they take you, then they look for another fare. Thats a taxi. Not sharing a ride.

Bit like Irish illegal immigrants in America being called undocumented.

makeorbrake · 14-07-2019 1:41pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Would "ride sharing" not be that Im going to wexford in the morning so an app would allow other people going to wexford to carpool with me.

Uber isnt that, its an unlicensed taxi. You tell them where you want to go and they take you, then they look for another fare. Thats a taxi. Not sharing a ride.

Bit like Irish illegal immigrants in America being called undocumented.

The most effective use is application in the manner you describe, together with short term availability i.e. someone who wants to go out to work for a couple of hours - using a car that that is otherwise sitting idle and forms part of the country's existing car fleet.

If there's a willingness (which it appears there isnt), that can all be regulated in. Meanwhile, 'discussion' here amongst naysayers doesn't even entertain that in any way shape or form.

LuckyLloyd · 14-07-2019 2:23pm

For this thread to be progressed, really need "ride sharing" and taxiing to be differentiated in some sort of convincing way beyond simply insisting it's different because "innovation".

makeorbrake · 14-07-2019 3:32pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

For this thread to be progressed, really need "ride sharing" and taxiing to be differentiated in some sort of convincing way beyond simply insisting it's different because "innovation".

It depends on what you mean by 'progress'. Different people would use different metrics. To me it would be a concession that at least ridesharing as described in the last couple of posts has merit. Without that from the naysayers, the discussion will remain entrenched.

As regards your 'innovation' jibe, it's been articulated at length as to what it is and to why it is (or can be) a positive force. Unless of course you choose to ignore those elements (which seems to be the case).

14-07-2019 4:09pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

For this thread to be progressed, really need "ride sharing" and taxiing to be differentiated in some sort of convincing way beyond simply insisting it's different because "innovation".

Agreed, this thread has basically become makeorbrake's attempt to always have the last word.

makeorbrake · 14-07-2019 4:39pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Agreed, this thread has basically become makeorbrake's attempt to always have the last word.

If you have a complaint, I'd respectfully suggest you bring it to a Mod. The reality is that there have been attempts to browbeat me into submission. That's not something I've ever rolled over for - quite the opposite.

LuckyLloyd · 14-07-2019 4:39pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

It depends on what you mean by 'progress'. Different people would use different metrics. To me it would be a concession that at least ridesharing as described in the last couple of posts has merit. Without that from the naysayers, the discussion will remain entrenched.

As regards your 'innovation' jibe, it's been articulated at length as to what it is and to why it is (or can be) a positive force. Unless of course you choose to ignore those elements (which seems to be the case).

Blah blah

What's the difference between ridesharing and taxiing again?

makeorbrake · 14-07-2019 4:42pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Blah blah

Says everything about the attitude you bring to your engagement on this discussion. Right back at you.

14-07-2019 4:47pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

What's the difference between ridesharing and taxiing again?

Hmm, let's see, one let's you call for a ride using an app, pay for the ride using the app, and can be waved down on the street.

The other can only do 2 of those things

makeorbrake · 14-07-2019 5:00pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Hmm, let's see, one let's you call for a ride using an app, pay for the ride using the app, and can be waved down on the street.

The other can only do 2 of those things

Someone working a couple of hours with their existing vehicle that would otherwise be parked up or someone switching on the app as they drive in to work or where-ever else is not taxi-ing.

Guy:Incognito · 14-07-2019 5:12pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

Someone working a couple of hours with their existing vehicle that would otherwise be parked up or someone switching on the app as they drive in to work or where-ever else is not taxi-ing.

If someone with a taxi plate did the same thing theyd still be called a taxi though.

end of the road · 14-07-2019 5:18pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

Someone working a couple of hours with their existing vehicle that would otherwise be parked up or someone switching on the app as they drive in to work or where-ever else is not taxi-ing.

it is . it is taking a passenger from a to b for reward, a fare in return.
part time drivers already exist within the psv industry. people who simply go out for a couple of hours and come home again.
so again, absolutely nothing different here that requires different regulation.

Spook_ie · 14-07-2019 5:19pm

usernamegoes wrote: »

You can't claim for more than the damage incurred or your insurable-interest. You can have supplemental insurance. Over-insured is common phrase in insurance circles look it up.

I suppose rare claims over 1m wouldn't be covered unless the dispatch operator was required to have higher coverage but it's better than getting nothing from an uninsured taxi.

I will respond on the rest tomorrow or when I get a chance.

afaik ALL insurance policies for motoring in Ireland cover unlimited personal liability for injury and death.

Axa:- We will pay all amounts you legally have to pay
as a result of negligently using your car and any
trailer or caravan being towed by it, if you cause
the accidental death of, or bodily injury to, any
person

Allianz:-We will indemnify the person(s) insured
for legal liability (and for the related costs
and expenses) for damages in respect of:
death or bodily injury or disease to any
person, and / or damage to property
arising from the use of Your Car specified
in the current Certificate of Motor
Insurance or trailer used in connection
therewith for the same use as specified in
the current Certificate of Motor Insurance,

They would be two of the biggest underwriters of Hire and Reward insurance, giving unlimited injury and death liability and €30,000,000 damages liability, kind of knocks Ubers coverage into the corner.

Primarily Uber and others insurance is a top up insurance to cover limited policies that are popular in the States and some other countries where you pay for your own decided risk level and keep your fingers crossed the costs etc. don't exceed it.
https://www.thebalance.com/understanding-minimum-car-insurance-requirements-2645473

Minimum coverage that is shockingly low when you look at the costs of medical treatment etc. in the States
i.e

New York
$25,000 bodily injury liability per person
$50,000 bodily injury liability per accident
$50,000 liability for death per person
$100,000 liability for death per accident
$10,000 property damage liability per accident
$50,000 personal injury protection
$25,000 uninsured motorist coverage per person
$50,000 uninsured motorist coverage per accident

Better hope you don't kill more than 2 at a time!

As regards uninsured taxis hopefully the Gardai and NTA react quickly enough to take action when notified by the insurance companies of cancelled policies, but there is still the Uninsured Drivers Fund to cover something of the aftermath of an accident.

makeorbrake · 14-07-2019 5:33pm

end of the road wrote: »

it is . it is taking a passenger from a to b for reward, a fare in return.
part time drivers already exist within the psv industry. people who simply go out for a couple of hours and come home again.
so again, absolutely nothing different here that requires different regulation.

There's everything different about it unless you want to stay stuck in the past and take the country with you (most likely that's the idea for personal gain or for wayward ideological reasons).

If it wasn't different, how would this have ever even have become a thing on a global scale. The ability to harness the existing car fleet and for people to ride share - switching on the app dynamically. Just because you have a set of regulations that are outdated and have not kept up with technology and innovation doesn't mean that they cant be moved away from in support of innovation for the betterment of society as a whole.

LuckyLloyd · 14-07-2019 5:33pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

Says everything about the attitude you bring to your engagement on this discussion. Right back at you.

And again you refuse to answer the key question: what is the difference between ride sharing and taxiing? It's a simple question, and until you can draw a clear difference between the two it renders the rest of the conversation moot.

makeorbrake · 14-07-2019 5:35pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

And again you refuse to answer the key question: what is the difference between ride sharing and taxiing? It's a simple question, and until you can draw a clear difference between the two it renders the rest of the conversation moot.

That's incorrect. You failed to acknowledge the reference to that in the immediate posts beforehand. That's aside from the fact that there are countless pages of content on this thread that lay it out.

And replying with 'blah blah' - whilst a reflection on you - otherwise doesn't cut the mustard.

makeorbrake · 14-07-2019 5:36pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If someone with a taxi plate did the same thing theyd still be called a taxi though.

See my penultimate post above. Additionally, if we are able to make a distinction between hackney and taxi, then it's quite easy to make this distinction too. A separate regulation and license is possible - if the will is there. The suggestion here is that nothing can be changed - that's incorrect.

Guy:Incognito · 14-07-2019 5:44pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

See my penultimate post above. .

That post just pretty much says "its different because".

Uber is people operating a taxi without a plate or licence. It's not "bringing the country out of the past" or anything like it.

If you owned a restaurant or takeaway and someone on the road started selling food cooked in their kitchen without having to adhere to the same standards, the costs of premises, pay rates or any of the other associated costs of owning and running a food service business, it would hardly be fair and doubtful you'd describe it as the person improving on your outdated business model.

Even if they did promise their kitchen was clean and they were just as good a chef as the guy that went to school to learn.

What part of the taxi industry is stuck in the past btw? Considering UBER is doing the same thing just without the regulation?

end of the road · 14-07-2019 6:08pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

There's everything different about it unless you want to stay stuck in the past and take the country with you (most likely that's the idea for personal gain or for wayward ideological reasons).

the tiny differences are not enough to have separate regulations, they can be, and are all covered by existing regulation.

makeorbrake wrote: »

If it wasn't different, how would this have ever even have become a thing on a global scale. The ability to harness the existing car fleet and for people to ride share - switching on the app dynamically.

because those pushing it thought they could get around regulations because they called it something different to what it was, and didn't directly employ the staff.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Just because you have a set of regulations that are outdated and have not kept up with technology and innovation doesn't mean that they cant be moved away from in support of innovation for the betterment of society as a whole.

the regulations are up to date. they cover all possible technology and innovation.

n97 mini · 14-07-2019 6:47pm

Biggest difference is barrier to entry. Getting a taxi on the road is very costly, and will be recouped from the customer.

Next biggest difference is ride-sharing! From day one it's been possible to share rides with other customers who are going a similar route, usually for around a third to half the price of being the sole customer. Uber calls it UberPool, can't remember what Lyft calls it. In dense metro areas like NYC ride-sharing makes up a significant part of the business.

I understand from radio ads that MyTaxi (I think) introduced something similar recently. I don't know if it's still the case that a lot of taxi drivers turn off the app at peak times, which negates the effectiveness of this feature.

end of the road · 14-07-2019 7:06pm

n97 mini wrote: »

Biggest difference is barrier to entry. Getting a taxi on the road is very costly, and will be recouped from the customer.

Next biggest difference is ride-sharing! From day one it's been possible to share rides with other customers who are going a similar route, usually for around a third to half the price of being the sole customer. Uber calls it UberPool, can't remember what Lyft calls it. In dense metro areas like NYC ride-sharing makes up a significant part of the business.

I understand from radio ads that MyTaxi (I think) introduced something similar recently. I don't know if it's still the case that a lot of taxi drivers turn off the app at peak times, which negates the effectiveness of this feature.

the cars operating ride sharing are either taxis or hackneys when operating. lets just call them psvs.
the cars are only able to get on the road for less cost by either trying to get around regulations, or their place of operation having little regulation.
so again absolutely nothing different here requiring changes or separate regulation. it's essentially bringing back the taxi industry just after deregulation which had to be reregulated again based on user feedback.

Spook_ie · 14-07-2019 9:15pm

n97 mini wrote: »

Biggest difference is barrier to entry. Getting a taxi on the road is very costly, and will be recouped from the customer.

Is that not the reason people Uber, they aren't doing it as social justice warriors. They are doing it to make money, the costs of regulations are higher than no regulation but they are there for a reason.

Next biggest difference is ride-sharing! From day one it's been possible to share rides with other customers who are going a similar route, usually for around a third to half the price of being the sole customer. Uber calls it UberPool, can't remember what Lyft calls it. In dense metro areas like NYC ride-sharing makes up a significant part of the business.

Uber didn't have Uberpool until August 2014 Uber's day one was in May 2011
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Uber

I understand from radio ads that MyTaxi (I think) introduced something similar recently. I don't know if it's still the case that a lot of taxi drivers turn off the app at peak times, which negates the effectiveness of this feature.

It's only being trialed in 2 areas of Dublin so far, haven't been to the trial areas at all yet, so unable to comment. Maybe I'll take a deliberate drive over one of the nights and see.
As to drivers turning off app, that would be usually when it's very busy and which tends to cut the cash time wasters out. ( The people who order a FreeNow and don't bother waiting for it ). Uber has a big advantage in only dealing with credit/debit cards. Wish FreeNow were doing cards only.

Guy:Incognito · 14-07-2019 9:42pm

People can and have been sharing taxi's since the concept (of taxi's) was invented. It's generally friends jumping in together but theres nothing stopping a couple of more of people going the same general direction from hopping in a taxi together and sharing it.

LuckyLloyd · 14-07-2019 9:55pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

People can and have been sharing taxi's since the concept (of taxi's) was invented. It's generally friends jumping in together but theres nothing stopping a couple of more of people going the same general direction from hopping in a taxi together and sharing it.

Free Now facilitate it via their app now too

n97 mini · 14-07-2019 10:04pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Is that not the reason people Uber, they aren't doing it as social justice warriors. They are doing it to make money, the costs of regulations are higher than no regulation but they are there for a reason.

There is regulation, just not by the civil service.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Uber didn't have Uberpool until August 2014 Uber's day one was in May 2011
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Uber

Minor mistake. Day one for me was Manchester in 2015.

Spook_ie wrote: »

It's only being trialed in 2 areas of Dublin so far, haven't been to the trial areas at all yet, so unable to comment. Maybe I'll take a deliberate drive over one of the nights and see.

I'll take your word for it. As I've said before I don't use taxis.

Spook_ie wrote: »

As to drivers turning off app, that would be usually when it's very busy and which tends to cut the cash time wasters out. ( The people who order a FreeNow and don't bother waiting for it ). Uber has a big advantage in only dealing with credit/debit cards. Wish FreeNow were doing cards only.

I understood it was to avoid paying comission and to a lesser extent tax, as cash fares are untraceable. Or so I've been told.

n97 mini · 14-07-2019 10:08pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

theres nothing stopping a couple of more of people going the same general direction from hopping in a taxi together and sharing it.

There's nothing stopping it, but generally speaking there's no mechanism to facilitate it until very recently. But as I said, it won't work when drivers switch off the app at peak times.

Spook_ie · 14-07-2019 10:19pm

n97 mini wrote: »

There is regulation, just not by the civil service.

Again the main question is who sets the bar, a for profit organisation, whose sole aim is to make money or a government authorized body.

end of the road · 14-07-2019 10:22pm

n97 mini wrote: »

There is regulation, just not by the civil service.

exactly. it's self-regulation. regulation via the whim of a private company which can change at any time depending on the company's costs, losses and profits.
civil service regulation generally operates on the basis of the good of industry and it's users as a whole and changes on that basis. so is trust worthy and reliable, even if it can be imperfect at times.

n97 mini · 14-07-2019 10:31pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Again the main question is who sets the bar, a for profit organisation, whose sole aim is to make money or a government authorized body.

Which has higher standards?

As regards for profit, Law Society regulates the legal profession, so it's not like self regulation doesn't already exist in this country.

Government bodies are notoriously susceptible to political interference, arguably for the sole aim of re-election.

end of the road · 14-07-2019 10:56pm

n97 mini wrote: »

The Law Society regulates the legal profession, so it's not like self regulation doesn't already exist in this country.

yes but i can't imagine the law society simply make the rules, rather they regulate the rules as set down by government along with whatever specific codes of conduct they have.
uber on the other hand make up their own rules where there is no government regulation.

n97 mini wrote: »

Government bodies are notoriously susceptible to political interference, arguably for the sole aim of re-election.

sure, but it's nothing compared to the potential effects of simply leaving it to a private company to decide it's own rules, where the safety of people is concerned.
also the interference in such government bodies is not guaranteed to get the result the interferer would like, and even if it did, not enough to guarantee reelection. in fact, the result may insure a definite unelection for those implementing that result.

Spook_ie · 14-07-2019 11:45pm

n97 mini wrote: »

Which has higher standards?

As regards for profit, Law Society regulates the legal profession, so it's not like self regulation doesn't already exist in this country.

Government bodies are notoriously susceptible to political interference, arguably for the sole aim of re-election.

Well if Uber, Lyft, Taxify, FreeNow etc. were to all band together to form a society for regulation of transport or whatever you might have an argument for it, but a single for profit company, you've a big imagination to compare them to a non profit organisation

The Law Society exercises statutory functions under the Solicitors Acts 1954 to 2015 in relation to the education, admission, enrolment, discipline and regulation of the solicitors' profession. It is the professional body for its solicitor members, to whom it also provides services and support.

The Law Society cannot provide legal advice. If you have a legal query, please contact a solicitor.

Spook_ie · 15-07-2019 2:02am

n97 mini wrote: »

T<snipped>

Minor mistake. Day one for me was Manchester in 2015.

I<snipped>.

Assuming your Uber experiences are based on Manchester, if not let us know where so I can see Uber requirements for there.

https://secure.manchester.gov.uk/directory/26/licensing/category/362
If Uber aren't using licensed PHV ( Irish Hackney) or Hackney (Irish Taxi) Yeah opposite way around. Then they are breaking the law.

Of note are the fees
Driver

Fees
The application fee is £255 and you will also have to pay for:

basic skills assessment £42.00;
knowledge test fee £74.00; and
enhanced disclosure DBS application/certificate, £66.60 - you pay directly to CBS Ltd (we’ll let you know how to do this later). You must complete, pay and submit the application before you attend your appointment.

Vehicle

Fees
Vehicle applications - Private hire vehicles

These fees do not include the cost of vehicle tests and any plates, stickers, other consumables or notice fees.

New application

Current fee £148
Renewal application

Current fee £144
Variation (replacement) & renewal application

Current fee £162
Beyond the age application (charged in addition to the renewal application fee)

Current fee £77
Vehicle test fees - charged in addition to the above application fees

Vehicle is brand new (delivery miles only) - MOT tests one per year £60
Vehicle is less than 5 years old - MOT tests two per year £120
Vehicle is more than 5 years old - MOT tests three per year £180

Can't find any info about fees for Hackneys ( Irish Taxis ) so not sure if they are limited supply in Greater Manchester as they were here in Ireland pre-deregulation.

If Uber are working to the regulations in Manchester then it would seem that it's not the regulations in Ireland holding them back here.

makeorbrake · 15-07-2019 6:31am

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

That post just pretty much says "its different because".

and after the 'because'...it's been fleshed out ..there and in a whole host of posts on this thread.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Uber is people operating a taxi without a plate or licence. It's not "bringing the country out of the past" or anything like it.

It's leaving the country behind the curve. If you have an existing car fleet and there's a possibility to squeeze more out of it, that makes for a more efficient society and economy.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If you owned a restaurant or takeaway and someone on the road started selling food cooked in their kitchen without having to adhere to the same standards, the costs of premises, pay rates or any of the other associated costs of owning and running a food service business, it would hardly be fair and doubtful you'd describe it as the person improving on your outdated business model.

What standards are being cut?

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What part of the taxi industry is stuck in the past btw? Considering UBER is doing the same thing just without the regulation?

How is uber doing anything without regulation? There are a couple of things that are blocking it - like the WAV requirement.
It's more a case of the country not adapting to change fast enough. The countries that innovate faster are far more advanced economies. Using the existing car fleet is far more efficient for the country. If that implicates reduced fares into the bargain, it contributes to a reduced cost of living. If it means the enablement of actual ride sharing - it means more efficiency for the driver in terms of his/her costs.

end of the road wrote: »

the tiny differences are not enough to have separate regulations, they can be, and are all covered by existing regulation.

Which ever way you slice and dice it, it needs to be called out separately and addressed specifically. Otherwise, regulation needs to be amended to enable it - and that doesn't mean some major reduction in standards - quite the opposite. It just means that the regulator has to take a look at the barriers to entry.

end of the road wrote: »

because those pushing it thought they could get around regulations because they called it something different to what it was, and didn't directly employ the staff.

Are you saying that there is a form of ride sharing that is acceptable in your eyes then?

end of the road wrote: »

the regulations are up to date. they cover all possible technology and innovation.

If they don't call out ride sharing specifically and address that, then they're not. And in fact, they cant be - as there is no enablement of ride sharing in Ireland (in real terms).

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

People can and have been sharing taxi's since the concept (of taxi's) was invented. It's generally friends jumping in together but theres nothing stopping a couple of more of people going the same general direction from hopping in a taxi together and sharing it.

That's analog. You enable it through technology - you don't have to know anyone going the way - that stuff just happens between friends and/or by accident. Uber pool has real power to it.

15-07-2019 8:47am

I'm beginning to understand how Uber lost the ECJ case

LuckyLloyd · 15-07-2019 10:25am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm beginning to understand how Uber lost the ECJ case

The inability to cogently differentiate ridesharing from taxiiing would have killed their side of the case stone dead alright.

usernamegoes · 15-07-2019 1:02pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

afaik ALL insurance policies for motoring in Ireland cover unlimited personal liability for injury and death.

What happens if my taxi driver that I book via a dispatch operator hasn't paid his insurance premium that month and has his insurance cancelled or he illegally lends his car to another driver? Will the dispatch operator's insurance cover the shortfall from the uninsured driver's fund?

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The inability to cogently differentiate ridesharing from taxiiing would have killed their side of the case stone dead alright.

Can you advise us of the relevant arguments made in the CJEU or where in the opinion of the Court or advocate general the issue of ridesharing v taxing was central to the argument.

LuckyLloyd · 15-07-2019 1:30pm

usernamegoes wrote: »

Can you advise us of the relevant arguments made in the CJEU or where in the opinion of the Court or advocate general the issue of ridesharing v taxing was central to the argument.

I won’t “advise” you of anything. The opinion of the Advocate General can be found here:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62015CC0434

The original complaint was from Spanish Taxi associations saying that Uber was facilitating people in Spain to offer taxi services without the appropriate licenses and authorisations, essentially creating unfair competition falling foul of relevant regulations.

Sections 41 and 42 address the point head on:

41. What is Uber? Is it a transport undertaking, a taxi business to be blunt? Or is it solely an electronic platform enabling users to locate, book and pay for a transport service provided by someone else?

42.Uber is often described as an undertaking (or platform) in the ‘collaborative’ economy. I do not think there is any point in discussing the precise meaning of that term here. ( 13 ) What is relevant as far as Uber is concerned is that it certainly cannot be considered to be a ride-sharing platform. ( 14 ) Drivers on the Uber platform offer passengers a transport service to a destination selected by the passenger and, accordingly, are paid an amount which far exceeds the mere reimbursement of expenses incurred. It is therefore a traditional transport service. Whether or not it is regarded as forming part of a ‘collaborative economy’ is irrelevant to its classification under the law in force.

“It certainly cannot be considered to be a ride-sharing platform”

Or, to put it another way, it can call itself whatever it likes but the reality of what it provides is taxiing, provided for in EU law under traditional transport directives. The analysis continues on from section 42 and is comprehensive in its conclusion.

Uber Spain took a disingenuous position in the case, trying to argue it only provided advertising services for Uber BV in the Netherlands, but the opinion outlines why the Uber offering in general is transport, and that is not appropriate to split out the app functions from the actualities of driving a car.

Anyway, people should read this. Once you’ve read it, you’ll truly tire of the repeated flapping around the core points in this thread. Though given the disingenuous nature of Uber’s description of its offering, it shouldn’t be surprising that its fanboys take the same tack.

usernamegoes · 15-07-2019 1:37pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I won’t “advise” you of anything. The opinion of the Advocate General can be found here:

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62015CC0434

The original complaint was from Spanish Taxi associations saying that Uber was facilitating people in Spain to offer taxi services without the appropriate licenses and authorisations, essentially creating unfair competition falling foul of relevant regulations.

Sections 41 and 42 address the point head on:

“It certainly cannot be considered to be a ride-sharing platform”

Or, to put it another way, it can call itself whatever it likes but the reality of what it provides is taxiing, provided for in EU law under traditional transport directives. The analysis continues on from section 42 and is comprehensive in its conclusion.

Uber Spain took a disingenuous position in the case, trying to argue it only provided advertising services for Uber BV in the Netherlands, but the opinion outlines why the Uber offering in general is transport, and that is not appropriate to split out the app functions from the actualities of driving a car.

Anyway, people should read this. Once you’ve read it, you’ll truly tire of the repeated flapping around the core points in this thread. Though given the disingenuous nature of Uber’s description of its offering, it shouldn’t be surprising that its fanboys take the same tack.

You have very much misunderstood the law and the point of this case; this much is obvious.

Spook_ie · 15-07-2019 1:57pm

usernamegoes wrote: »

What happens if my taxi driver that I book via a dispatch operator hasn't paid his insurance premium that month and has his insurance cancelled or he illegally lends his car to another driver? Will the dispatch operator's insurance cover the shortfall from the uninsured driver's fund?

AFAIK there wouldn't be a shortfall from the MIBI fund.
If he illegally lends his car to another driver Ubers cover wouldn't kick in, if he hasn't the required cover on his car then again Uber cover wouldn't likely kick in because it's a top up policy not a replacement policy

Can you advise us of the relevant arguments made in the CJEU or where in the opinion of the Court or advocate general the issue of ridesharing v taxing was central to the argument.

Wish people would edit multiple replies so that it makes sense when you read it back as to which reply is to which poster

LuckyLloyd · 15-07-2019 1:59pm

usernamegoes wrote: »

You have very much misunderstood the law and the point of this case; this much is obvious.

Oh yeah? You should probably substantiate that. I’m reading and quoting the Advocate General opinion directly.

Spook_ie · 15-07-2019 2:08pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Oh yeah? You should probably substantiate that. I’m reading and quoting the Advocate General opinion directly.

Yeah, well the Advocate General wouldn't know anything at all, at all, would he!

makeorbrake · 15-07-2019 2:40pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm beginning to understand how Uber lost the ECJ case

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The inability to cogently differentiate ridesharing from taxiiing would have killed their side of the case stone dead alright.

What makes you both look thick is the fact that the rest of the world recognises the unique aspect of the sharing economy as it relates to ridesharing. But go ahead and make fools of yourselves.

Uber

Comments