Uber

17-07-2019 7:34pm

Stephen15 wrote: »

Competition is fine as long as it's regulated. Uber do not want to operate in Ireland as they do not want to comply with Irish regulations. If they are complying with regulations then that is a form of unfair competition.

Dunnes Stores could not try to prevent Lidl entering Ireland unless Lidl were in breach of regulations.

well this forum is basically vested interests (taxi drivers) arguing against consumers.

I've used Uber in several countries and found the cars and drivers to be of a high standard.

In Ireland there are many problems in public transport both in urban and rural situations.

Uber's flexibility could definitely help alleviate some of those issues (low barrier to entry - no plate or taxi insurance required as under Uber insurance etc) with part-time work.

there is also no price competition in Ireland - due to the "regulations" - that's really the only "regulation" that both sides care about and the rest is smokescreen and semantics

makeorbrake · 17-07-2019 7:34pm

Stephen15 wrote: »

Competition is fine as long as it's regulated. Uber do not want to operate in Ireland as they do not want to comply with Irish regulations. If they are complying with regulations then that is a form of unfair competition.

Dunnes Stores could not try to prevent Lidl entering Ireland unless Lidl were in breach of regulations.

Have Uber broken irish regulations?

As regards ridesharing generally, if you have a protectionist anti-innovation regulatory regime like we have in Ireland - then you'll end up with - in effect - no ride sharing services. That's where we're at right now.

usernamegoes · 17-07-2019 8:01pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

you need to run around the mulberry bush three times at midnight, repeating 'uber's ridesharing is not taxiing' backwards before it actually becomes true, you know.

Which bush do we run around to say taxiing is different to hackneying?

Marcusm wrote: »

You might want to delete the last para; the ECJ is not bound by its own decisions so it’s hardly a contrast to say that it’s not bound by an Advicate General. Additionally, the ECJ does not generally distinguish between obiter dicta and ratio decidendi in the way a common law court would.

Of course there is a difference between a non-binding opinion of the AG and a judgment of the ECJ which is is free to reverse.

The ECJ may not use the terms but the point is valid. The questions did not ask the Court to deal with taxing v ridesharing and therefore no argument would be made on this points.

17-07-2019 8:03pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

Have Uber broken irish regulations?

As regards ridesharing generally, if you have a protectionist anti-innovation regulatory regime like we have in Ireland - then you'll end up with - in effect - no ride sharing services. That's where we're at right now.

the "regulation" that Uber want to "break" is the fixed price set by the NTA.

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/taxi-and-bus-licensing/taxi/operating-an-spsv/taxi-fares/

surge pricing would mean expensive prices occasionally but you'd probably see a 20% to 30% reduction on current fares mostly.

17-07-2019 8:22pm

glasso wrote: »

the "regulation" that Uber want to "break" is the fixed price set by the NTA.

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/taxi-and-bus-licensing/taxi/operating-an-spsv/taxi-fares/

surge pricing would mean expensive prices occasionally but you'd probably see a 20% to 30% reduction on current fares mostly .

You do know that their prices are subsidised to a large degree by investor funds. They are almost a literal definition of an unsustainable business model.

makeorbrake · 17-07-2019 8:26pm

Deleted User wrote: »

You do know that their prices are subsidised to a large degree by investor funds. They are almost a literal definition of an unsustainable business model.

So if they're unsustainable as is often mentioned here, what's the concern?

Ride sharing as it was originally intended would wipe the floor with taxi's anyway (and well it's known here - hence the staunch opposition).

the "regulation" that Uber want to "break" is the fixed price set by the NTA.

Well, regulation would have to be set for ride sharing in general. Uber isn't the only show in town. Every platform hasn't adopted the surge pricing model.

17-07-2019 8:28pm

Deleted User wrote: »

You do know that their prices are subsidised to a large degree by investor funds. They are almost a literal definition of an unsustainable business model.

I do understand that that is the current situation yes.

I still believe that they can be more efficient that what is currently there and that their business model is sustainable long-term due to cross-efficiencies on food delivery and other long-term plays such as autonomous driving solutions.

For the taxi drivers out there because Ireland is usually the last country to adopt anything innovative you're probably safe for the moment.

Vested interests usually do well in this little country also in general

The ideal situation would be to have 3 similar players offering a level of competition to each other.

kippy · 17-07-2019 8:30pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

So if they're unsustainable as is often mentioned here, what's the concern?

Ride sharing as it was originally intended would wipe the floor with taxi's anyway (and well it's known here - hence the staunch opposition).

Well, regulation would have to be set for ride sharing in general. Uber isn't the only show in town. Every platform hasn't adopted the surge pricing model.

The concern - letting transport operators operate outside of long standing rules and regulations and the impact that will have on the existing ecosystem for both existing operators and the paying public.

The regulation is already there.

kippy · 17-07-2019 8:31pm

glasso wrote: »

I do understand that that is the current situation yes.

I still believe that they can be more efficient that what is currently there and that their business model is sustainable long-term due to cross-efficiencies on food delivery and other long-term plays such as autonomous driving solutions.

For the taxi drivers out there because Ireland is usually the last country to adopt anything innovative you're probably safe for the moment.

Vested interests usually do well in this little country also in general

Absolute nonsense and again, there is nothing overly inovative about driving paying fares around.

There is no way that more cars on the road is "more efficient" in any way, shape or form, especially around already clogged up cities.

makeorbrake · 17-07-2019 8:32pm

kippy wrote: »

The concern

You well know I meant the concern over Uber's unsustainable business model.

kippy wrote: »

etting transport operators operate outside of long standing rules and regulations and the impact that will have on the existing ecosystem for both existing operators and the paying public.

The regulation is already there.

Regulation which is protectionist and anti-innovation.

The high horse brigade · 17-07-2019 8:34pm

Got 2x Taxis last sat on a family trip to the zoo and both of these were clapped out 12 year old smelly piles of 5hite, a Merc and an Avensis. Myself and my wife actually spoke about and compared this to our UK Uber trips in modern Prius, Superb and 508. The quality of Irish taxis is brutal

kippy · 17-07-2019 8:35pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

You well know I meant the concern over Uber's unsustainable business model.

Regulation which is protectionist and anti-innovation.

Ah ok,
you mean why be so concerned about Uber if their business model is unsustainable?
I don't think there are many here concerned about "Uber" per se, but concerned about establising rules and regulations to regulate a market that is already regulated at the behest of a few keyboard warriors.

makeorbrake · 17-07-2019 8:39pm

kippy wrote: »

Absolute nonsense and again, there is nothing overly inovative about driving paying fares around.

YOURS is the absolute nonsense. And way to go in (deliberately) misunderstanding the innovation that's implicated.

- use of the existing car fleet. No need for additional cars dedicated to psv (i.e. taxi's).

- enabling people to earn a few quid as they drive around anyways. More efficient environmentally, in terms of congestion and economically.

- enabling people to work dynamically (on a limited basis).

- the ability to implement app driven pooling - such as Uber pool.

- greater quality and smaller price.

- no need for cash payments

- more consumers enabled in affording such a service

- app enabled (Uber and others drove this - for the most part, taxi's followed the innovation).

kippy wrote: »

There is no way that more cars on the road is "more efficient" in any way, shape or form, especially around already clogged up cities.

Well, why would they be clogged up? Because more people are enabled because of better service and smaller prices? Glad we agree on that at least.

Then the regulator could structure regulation to incentivise Uber Pool like service. That does the opposite and brings down the number of cars on the road.

makeorbrake · 17-07-2019 8:41pm

kippy wrote: »

Ah ok,
you mean why be so concerned about Uber if their business model is unsustainable?
I don't think there are many here concerned about "Uber" per se, but concerned about establising rules and regulations to regulate a market that is already regulated at the behest of a few keyboard warriors.

On that point, we were'nt discussing regulation. You can others have made the point that it's an unsustainable business model. If that's the case whats to worry about? They'll fade away...unless of course you don't think they will fade away afterall. And you'd be right. Despite what sort of silly money they may be throwing at it, you all know they (or other ride sharing services) are here to stay.

17-07-2019 8:41pm

kippy wrote: »

The concern - letting transport operators operate outside of long standing rules and regulations and the impact that will have on the existing ecosystem for both existing operators and the paying public.

The regulation is already there.

the paying public would love 30% cheaper fares.

the existing ecosystem (why don't you just say Taxi Drivers?) would not.

that's what it boils down to.

all this talk or "regulation" is just smokescreen

Spook_ie · 17-07-2019 8:45pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

i have seen dozens of 'that's already been answered' posts but not one post that those posts supposedly refer to.

[Quot e ] [/Quote]

Would seem to be an unlikely but requisite tool, but sure why bother, the answers with that unicorn don't ya know

magicbastarder · 17-07-2019 8:56pm

The high horse brigade wrote: »

Got 2x Taxis last sat on a family trip to the zoo and both of these were clapped out 12 year old smelly piles of 5hite, a Merc and an Avensis. Myself and my wife actually spoke about and compared this to our UK Uber trips in modern Prius, Superb and 508. The quality of Irish taxis is brutal

the quality of irish taxis (well, dublin taxis as i'm not really familiar with taxis elsewhere) is weirdly inconsistent. i've gotten taxis where the suspension is clearly crapped out, and other times gotten well cared for mercs, and superbs, which were a year or two old.
but the thing is - uber is only one possible solution to this. for many issues, more regulation, not less, would be a logical step.

there's shag all regulation in ireland on the quality of drivers, and not much more on the quality of cars. but uber supposedly self-regulates, and clearly the irish economy has a fantastic history when it comes to self-regulation.

usernamegoes · 17-07-2019 8:57pm

At least this taxi driver is honest https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Material_Provided_10_FoI_2016-0038.pdf

kippy · 17-07-2019 8:58pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

YOURS is the absolute nonsense. And way to go in (deliberately) misunderstanding the innovation that's implicated.

- use of the existing car fleet. No need for additional cars dedicated to psv (i.e. taxi's).
*Not Innovative.
- enabling people to earn a few quid as they drive around anyways. More efficient environmentally, in terms of congestion and economically.
*People don't just "Drive around anyways"

- enabling people to work dynamically (on a limited basis).
*Not innovative.

- the ability to implement app driven pooling - such as Uber pool.

- greater quality and smaller price.
*Not Verifiable.
- no need for cash payments
*This is good but hardly innovative.

- more consumers enabled in affording such a service
*Nonsense.

- app enabled (Uber and others drove this - for the most part, taxi's followed the innovation).
*Are you old enough to remember Altavista or Geocities?

Well, why would they be clogged up? Because more people are enabled because of better service and smaller prices? Glad we agree on that at least.
*The would be clogged up because of all these people just "Driving around anyways"

Then the regulator could structure regulation to incentivise Uber Pool like service. That does the opposite and brings down the number of cars on the road.

The post suggested Ireland was the last country to adobt anything innovative - which is an absolutely nonsensical statement to make.
I've addressed specific points above.

kippy · 17-07-2019 9:00pm

glasso wrote: »

the paying public would love 30% cheaper fares.

the existing ecosystem (why don't you just say Taxi Drivers?) would not.

that's what it boils down to.

all this talk or "regulation" is just smokescreen

The ecosystem is not just Taxi drivers.

17-07-2019 9:05pm

kippy wrote: »

The post suggested Ireland was the last country to adobt anything innovative - which is an absolutely nonsensical statement to make.
I've addressed specific points above.

lol - something is not innovative because you mark it "not innovative" with no reasoning.

case closed.

kippy · 17-07-2019 9:07pm

glasso wrote: »

lol - something is not innovative because you mark it "not innovative" with no reasoning.

case closed.

I didn't see any reasoning in the original post as to why it was innovative.
Posters earlier exchange on this was that "Experts in Innovation had said that Uber was innovative - hence it was innovative"

Do you actually think this is innovative:
Enabling people to work dynamically (on a limited basis).

17-07-2019 9:08pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

there's shag all regulation in ireland on the quality of drivers, and not much more on the quality of cars. but uber supposedly self-regulates, and clearly the irish economy has a fantastic history when it comes to self-regulation.

that was the big-stick argument at the outset that Taxi Drivers used to come out with - that you'd have all sorts of dodgy characters giving you a lift in an uber and that you're safe in a Taxi.

then there were the multiple cases of taxi rapists in Ireland and the black cab taxi in the London area (who raped over 100 women over a period of years by drugging them) and all went quiet on that front.

now the "argument" consists soley of the gospel that the regulations must be followed.

makeorbrake · 17-07-2019 9:10pm

kippy wrote: »

The post suggested Ireland was the last country to adobt anything innovative - which is an absolutely nonsensical statement to make.
I've addressed specific points above.

If you're going to comment, then comment - don't scribble over my post. And from what I've seen those 'comments' are nonsense. You have no idea what innovation is. Taxi drivers are the very ones that 'drive around anyways'...as in aimlessly. People who have an objective in going from A to B and switching the app on as they do so - there's a lot of power and efficiency in that...deny all you want but it lacks complete credibility to do so.

As regards adoption of tech/ innovation in ireland, we are snails.

end of the road · 17-07-2019 9:24pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

ride sharing is not taxi-ing. Regulation can distinguish between hackney and taxi. It can do so with ridesharing and taxi'ing.

it can't as ride sharing is a part of taxiing and hackneying.
also there is nothing stopping someone from offering someone a lift as long as they don't take a fare in return, or advertise themselves as a psv.

makeorbrake · 17-07-2019 9:30pm

end of the road wrote: »

it can't as ride sharing is a part of taxiing and hackneying.

Eh, so change it. If the will is there, it can be done. ...and other than that, is it even referenced in any regulation? Is there a section in any regulation that mentions ride sharing? Most likely there isn't. So how is it a part of anything. It's not been dealt with.

end of the road wrote: »

also there is nothing stopping someone from offering someone a lift as long as they don't take a fare in return, or advertise themselves as a psv.

Yeah, that's right up there with, 'ah, shur we have pooling in taxi's already'.

As above - change it!

end of the road · 17-07-2019 9:34pm

glasso wrote: »

the average consumer could give a toss about the regulated taxi industry or how it would be disrupted (read: made cheaper) by the likes of Uber and Lyft.

that is why we have the regulator, to care on their behalf. because if the taxi industry was allowed to be disrupted by a company like uber successfully getting around the regulations, it wouldn't be made cheaper long term if it removed independant drivers and companies from the market. prices would be jacked up.

glasso wrote: »

what exactly are the fantastic benefits for the consumer of these regulations?

standards of vehicles. standards of drivers. price regulation to insure no jacking up of prices at will.

glasso wrote: »

they want cheaper transport options in a country that has poor public transport options and availability timewise (e.g. at night)

in dublin and cork they are going to get that with night busses. for everyone else, there is hackneys and possibly other night buses if they live on such routes.

glasso wrote: »

it's like Dunnes Stores being able to stop Lidl coming to Ireland as they'd prefer not to have the hassle of competition.

it's not. the taxi industry can't stop competition and neither can the regulator. however unfair competition via the flouting of regulations can be stopped and rightly so. if uber wish to launch their service on a large scale here, they can do so and are not being stopped from doing so, but are choosing not to do so as they aren't allowed to ride rough shot over everyone..

end of the road · 17-07-2019 9:43pm

glasso wrote: »

well this forum is basically vested interests (taxi drivers) arguing against consumers.

it's not. there are taxi drivers here yes, but there are consumers as well. in fact, most of us argueing against the uber champions are consumers and we are happy for uber to come as long as they abide by our regulations. we should not change for them, they are not that important and are not required. they would be nice to have but are not necessary or critical to the running and functioning of the country.

glasso wrote: »

I've used Uber in several countries and found the cars and drivers to be of a high standard.

great. so they won't have a problem complying with our regulations.

glasso wrote: »

In Ireland there are many problems in public transport both in urban and rural situations.

there are however reducing regulations to favour 1 company certainly won't deal with them.

glasso wrote: »

Uber's flexibility could definitely help alleviate some of those issues (low barrier to entry - no plate or taxi insurance required as under Uber insurance etc) with part-time work.

that is what we had post deregulation of the taxi industry and it failed. user feedback meant regulations to an extent reinstated. in fact we actually already have low barriers to entry.

glasso wrote: »

there is also no price competition in Ireland - due to the "regulations" - that's really the only "regulation" that both sides care about and the rest is smokescreen and semantics

incorrect, psvs operate price competition. the regulations just prevent them from jacking up prices at will along with other price regulations that prevent the customer being charged unfair and unreasonable prices.

usernamegoes · 17-07-2019 9:43pm

end of the road wrote: »

it can't as ride sharing is a part of taxiing and hackneying.
also there is nothing stopping someone from offering someone a lift as long as they don't take a fare in return, or advertise themselves as a psv.

What are the differences between all the various PSVs as you see it?

end of the road · 17-07-2019 9:49pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

Have Uber broken irish regulations?

As regards ridesharing generally, if you have a protectionist anti-innovation regulatory regime like we have in Ireland - then you'll end up with - in effect - no ride sharing services. That's where we're at right now.

incorrect we don't have such a regime in ireland.

glasso wrote: »

I do understand that that is the current situation yes.

I still believe that they can be more efficient that what is currently there and that their business model is sustainable long-term due to cross-efficiencies on food delivery and other long-term plays such as autonomous driving solutions.

For the taxi drivers out there because Ireland is usually the last country to adopt anything innovative you're probably safe for the moment.

Vested interests usually do well in this little country also in general

The ideal situation would be to have 3 similar players offering a level of competition to each other.

we have thousands of players competing with each other in the psv industry so what you are looking for already exists.

makeorbrake · 17-07-2019 10:04pm

end of the road wrote: »

incorrect we don't have such a regime in ireland.

Eh, that's your opinion - and I certainly don't share it. If we don't have ride sharing (in reality) in Ireland, then the regulator has failed - end of.

end of the road wrote: »

we have thousands of players competing with each other in the psv industry so what you are looking for already exists.

It's not the same thing. Ride sharing is far more innovative. Given the chance, there won't need to be a need for your precious taxi drivers. Consumers would vote with their smartphones. You want to censor consumer choice and censor people's ability to participate in the sharing economy. Will you be holidaying in North Korea this year too?

17-07-2019 10:06pm

end of the road wrote: »

regulation

standards of vehicles. standards of drivers. price regulation to insure no jacking up of prices at will.

vehicles and driver standards have not shown to be issue with Uber in any general sense and we're not exactly renowned for high stds for either in Irish Taxis so moot.

so basically it's all about price regulation

the market would decide this - no need to regulate.

17-07-2019 10:08pm

end of the road wrote: »

incorrect we don't have such a regime in ireland.

we have thousands of players competing with each other in the psv industry so what you are looking for already exists.

rubbish. fares for taxis are regulated.

for hackneys they are not.

end of the road · 17-07-2019 10:17pm

glasso wrote: »

the paying public would love 30% cheaper fares.

the existing ecosystem (why don't you just say Taxi Drivers?) would not.

that's what it boils down to.

all this talk or "regulation" is just smokescreen

30% cheaper fares aren't going to happen. uber isn't going to deliver it. even if we abolished the regulations or loosened them, going back to the failed model post deregulation, 30% cheaper fares would either not be achieved, or certainly wouldn't last long until the prices were jacked up
, probably higher then what is currently being paid.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Eh, so change it. If the will is there, it can be done. ...and other than that, is it even referenced in any regulation? Is there a section in any regulation that mentions ride sharing? Most likely there isn't. So how is it a part of anything. It's not been dealt with.

Yeah, that's right up there with, 'ah, shur we have pooling in taxi's already'.

As above - change it!

there is nothing to change. ride sharing is hackneying and taxiing so it is included by default within our regulation.

makeorbrake · 17-07-2019 10:22pm

end of the road wrote: »

30% cheaper fares aren't going to happen. uber isn't going to deliver it. #

Uber isn't the only show in town and nobody ever regulated for one specific company.

end of the road wrote: »

there is nothing to change. ride sharing is hackneying and taxiing so it is included by default within our regulation.

Ride sharing is not taxi-ing or hackneying. It is it's own category.

end of the road · 17-07-2019 10:29pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

Eh, that's your opinion - and I certainly don't share it. If we don't have ride sharing (in reality) in Ireland, then the regulator has failed - end of.

it's not my opinion, it's fact that we don't have the type of regime you claim we have, in ireland.

makeorbrake wrote: »

It's not the same thing. Ride sharing is far more innovative. Given the chance, there won't need to be a need for your precious taxi drivers. Consumers would vote with their smartphones. You want to censor consumer choice and censor people's ability to participate in the sharing economy. Will you be holidaying in North Korea this year too?

it is the same thing. ride sharing is hackneying and taxiing by another name. therefore there will be a need for such taxi drivers. nothing is being censored. the sharing economy and participation in it can happen away as long as our regulations are abided by.

glasso wrote: »

vehicles and driver standards have not shown to be issue with Uber in any general sense and we're not exactly renowned for high stds for either in Irish Taxis so moot.

so basically it's all about price regulation

the market would decide this - no need to regulate.

every need for regulation to prevent the customer from being potentially screwed.

the market would decide price is exactly why we need regulation, because the market has shown that it can't be trusted in relation to the psv industry.

glasso wrote: »

rubbish. fares for taxis are regulated.

for hackneys they are not.

that makes no difference to the fact we have price competition. the competition can happen within the regulated fare structure which ixists to protect the consumer.

end of the road · 17-07-2019 10:33pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

Uber isn't the only show in town and nobody ever regulated for one specific company.

exactly so we don't need to change the regulations on the basis of facilitating uber's offering which is already facilitated as part of our current regulations.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ride sharing is not taxi-ing or hackneying. It is it's own category.

it is hackneying and taxiing by another name. everything it does is exactly what hackneying and taxiing allows.

usernamegoes · 17-07-2019 10:34pm

end of the road wrote: »

it is the same thing. ride sharing is hackneying and taxiing by another name. therefore there will be a need for such taxi drivers. nothing is being censored. the sharing economy and participation in it can happen away as long as our regulations are abided by.

What are the important differences between taxis and hackneys?

Spook_ie · 17-07-2019 10:36pm

glasso wrote: »

rubbish. fares for taxis are regulated.

for hackneys they are not.

Fares for hackneys are regulated via the fact that if a hackney quotes you a €100 for a fare and you know a taxi will cost you less than €50 then it's unlikely the hackney will get your business.

It boils down to we are already regulated for Uber the same way as London, Manchester etc. in that the vehicle must be licensed, the driver must be licensed and the vehicle must be insured for hire and reward.

The only thing stopping Uber is the government signed up for section 9 of the UN Charter on People with Disabilities and the NTA were tasked to achieve the target of at least 10% of vehicles to be WAVs, they have said themselves they are on target to achieve this by 2020. At which time I expect the WAV regulations to be waived and anybody can put an SPSV on the road ( taxi, limo or hackney ) providing they follow the regulations.

As discussions with Usernamegoes, there could well be consideration given to ease the driver licensing requirements ( knowledge tests ) with the onset of SatNavs. But drivers and vehicles would still have to be licensed by the NTA and not by Uber, Lyft etc.

makeorbrake · 17-07-2019 10:37pm

end of the road wrote: »

exactly so we don't need to change the regulations on the basis of facilitating uber's offering which is already facilitated as part of our current regulations.

Completely wrong and it seems deliberately misunderstood.

Uber doesn't define ride sharing. There are other platforms. The current regulations are for taxi's and hackneys - that doesn't address the issue of ride sharing.

end of the road wrote: »

it is hackneying and taxiing by another name. everything it does is exactly what hackneying and taxiing allows.

No, it's not. If it was, why don't we see it on the streets of Ireland? Why is it - when you ask people here if we have Uber, they say no?

It hasn't been enabled - as current regulation has smothered it at birth.

17-07-2019 10:38pm

end of the road wrote: »

every need for regulation to prevent the customer from being potentially screwed.

the market would decide price is exactly why we need regulation, because the market has shown that it can't be trusted in relation to the psv industry.

that makes no difference to the fact we have price competition. the competition can happen within the regulated fare structure which ixists to protect the consumer.

I open my Uber/ Lyft app - get an idea of current prices and trip estimate - if I don't like the price I don't take it. without modern technology mabye but this is an non-issue now.

what price competition happens in the current taxi fare situation?
please provide examples? there might be set fares to Dublin airport from parts of Dublin but that is where taxis are effectively competing against a hackney market, not picking up from street.

makeorbrake · 17-07-2019 10:41pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Fares for hackneys are regulated via the fact that if a hackney quotes you a €100 for a fare and you know a taxi will cost you less than €50 then it's unlikely the hackney will get your business.

So it's ok if a discernment is made between two categories when it suits you but when it doesn't (in the case of ride sharing) then you change tact.

Can only be self interest or wayward ideology at play.

Spook_ie · 17-07-2019 10:44pm

glasso wrote: »

I open my Uber/ Lyft app - get an idea of current prices and trip estimate - if I don't like the price I don't take it. without modern technology mabye but this is an non-issue now.

what price competition happens in the current taxi fare situation?
please provide examples? there might be set fares to Dublin airport from parts of Dublin but that is where taxis are effectively competing against a hackney market, not picking up from street.

So if there's a hackney market then Uber should be able to work in Ireland, there is no regulation that says "Uber you can't work here" but there is a requirement for Uber to work within any other regulations.

makeorbrake · 17-07-2019 10:50pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

So if there's a hackney market then Uber should be able to work in Ireland, there is no regulation that says "Uber you can't work here" but there is a requirement for Uber to work within any other regulations.

There's consideration for hackneys and consideration for taxis in the existing regulation. No such provision or consideration has been made for ride sharing services.

Spook_ie · 17-07-2019 11:49pm

Uber requirements in France, Germany and GB.

France

Take the VTC exam
The VTC exam allows you to get the VTC card, mandatory to become a professional driver. If you come to one of our partner reception areas, we will present you the offers to better prepare this exam.

VTC for Drivers and vehicles

Germany

Start making money by driving for a fleet in your area. Joining a fleet is a quick and easy way to start driving. To start, you'll need a private hire driving license (P-Schein).

P-Schein Wiki
Vehicle requirements
BoKraft

GB

In order to drive on the Uber app, you'll need a private hire licence from a council that Uber is licensed by. If you don't have one, that's OK - we'll help you get started with a personalised Ignition appointment where we offer advice and support after you sign up.

Vehicles

So it would seem that Uber works in France, Germany and GB (probably a few others as well ) under the equivalent of a hackney license but Ireland needs a rideshare regulation. Haters just got to hate.

makeorbrake · 17-07-2019 11:54pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

So it would seem that Uber works in France, Germany and GB (probably a few others as well ) under the equivalent of a hackney license but Ireland needs a rideshare regulation. Haters just got to hate.

The reality is the 'haters just got to hate' gets returned to sender as that's what's emanating from the naysayer camp. It's all good and well picking out jurisdictions that suit. Bear in mind also - to your cherry picking - that when it comes to adoption of new tech/innovative business models and cultivating and nurturing new tech/business models, the Europeans have been the laggards more recently. Not the Americans and the Asians.

By the way, of the three that you highlighted, which of them insists that you WONT get a license unless you have a WAV??

end of the road · 18-07-2019 12:00am

makeorbrake wrote: »

Completely wrong and it seems deliberately misunderstood.

Uber doesn't define ride sharing. There are other platforms. The current regulations are for taxi's and hackneys - that doesn't address the issue of ride sharing.

No, it's not. If it was, why don't we see it on the streets of Ireland? Why is it - when you ask people here if we have Uber, they say no?

It hasn't been enabled - as current regulation has smothered it at birth.

the current regulations are for psvs regardless of what they are or call themselves.
we don't see uber on the streets because they do not wish to compete.
uber's offering is enabled and has not been smothered.

glasso wrote: »

I open my Uber/ Lyft app - get an idea of current prices and trip estimate - if I don't like the price I don't take it. without modern technology mabye but this is an non-issue now.

what price competition happens in the current taxi fare situation?
please provide examples? there might be set fares to Dublin airport from parts of Dublin but that is where taxis are effectively competing against a hackney market, not picking up from street.

regulation insures that the customer is protected from being charged unreasonable prices and is better then the operators being left to decide.
an app is not enough to regulate price, regulation is and being overcharged can be just as much an issue with an app as without.

makeorbrake wrote: »

There's consideration for hackneys and consideration for taxis in the existing regulation. No such provision or consideration has been made for ride sharing services.

because ride sharing services are no different to other psvs such that separate regulation would be needed to regulate them. the current regulation is sufficient to regulate them.

makeorbrake · 18-07-2019 12:11am

end of the road wrote: »

the current regulations are for psvs regardless of what they are or call themselves.
we don't see uber on the streets because they do not wish to compete.
uber's offering is enabled and has not been smothered.

The current regulations have taxi's and hackneys in mind - they don't consider ride sharing services. It's not a case of 'regardless of what they call themselves'. You guys have already acknowledged that hackneys and taxis are treated differently yet when it's ride sharing, yer like "oh, that's just the same thing".

Of course ride sharing is being smothered if there isn't any ride sharing going on. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

end of the road wrote: »

regulation insures that the customer is protected from being charged unreasonable prices and is better then the operators being left to decide.
an app is not enough to regulate price, regulation is and being overcharged can be just as much an issue with an app as without.

Is it really? Uber is but one company. There are many other platforms who don't use surge pricing. They are being excluded also. Other than that, prices are still cheaper with Uber than they would be with taxi's when on surge pricing. So how exactly is the consumer being safeguarded?

end of the road wrote: »

because ride sharing services are no different to other psvs such that separate regulation would be needed to regulate them. the current regulation is sufficient to regulate them.

Incorrect. See above. You're quite happy that there's a distinction between hackneys and taxis yet because it suits, you don't want any enablement in the regulations for ride sharing.

end of the road · 18-07-2019 12:39am

makeorbrake wrote: »

The current regulations have taxi's and hackneys in mind - they don't consider ride sharing services. It's not a case of 'regardless of what they call themselves'. You guys have already acknowledged that hackneys and taxis are treated differently yet when it's ride sharing, yer like "oh, that's just the same thing".

Of course ride sharing is being smothered if there isn't any ride sharing going on. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

Is it really? Uber is but one company. There are many other platforms who don't use surge pricing. They are being excluded also. Other than that, prices are still cheaper with Uber than they would be with taxi's when on surge pricing. So how exactly is the consumer being safeguarded?

Incorrect. See above. You're quite happy that there's a distinction between hackneys and taxis yet because it suits, you don't want any enablement in the regulations for ride sharing.

ride sharing is happening and everything that is a component of it is already within the psv regulations. there is nothing different about the basic components of ride sharing that would require new/separate regulation.

makeorbrake · 18-07-2019 12:50am

end of the road wrote: »

ride sharing is happening and everything that is a component of it is already within the psv regulations. there is nothing different about the basic components of ride sharing that would require new/separate regulation.

There is - it needs to be enabled for the benefit of all stakeholders. The existing regulations have never even touched on the topic.

Has the regulator even met with Uber/Lyft/InDriver/Beat/DiDi, etc?

As regards your claim that it 'is happening', when you've had a stream of people come on here and say they would use ride sharing if it was available to them in Ireland, that means there's been a regulatory failure.

Uber

Comments