Uber

MJohnston wrote: »

Are you really this naive about Uber flouting regulations? I linked you to a whole Wikipedia article about it.

Don't be an obnoxious knob. I simply asked someone what the main cost saving elements were in terms of regulations. If you don't want to answer that, then don't - but don't come on here with posts that don't advance the discussion in any way, shape or form.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Don't be an obnoxious knob. I simply asked someone what the main cost saving elements were in terms of regulations. If you don't want to answer that, then don't - but don't come on here with posts that don't advance the discussion in any way, shape or form.

Ah I see, you're one of those posters. Look, this Wikipedia page is full of examples of them cutting corners to save money:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uber_protests_and_legal_actions

If you don't think that answers your question, I don't know what to say. Here's an overview:

• underpaying drivers (they had to pay out $20 million because of this)
• coding their app to avoid providing service to officials in cities where it was banned (and continuing to provide service to anyone else)
• getting Uber employees to deliberately waste the time of drivers using competitor apps
• their "dynamic pricing" model which frequently rips off passengers (this is one area where regulation is 100% protecting customers)
• classifying Uber drivers as 'independent contractors' to avoid having to treat them as employees (with pesky things like "minimum wage" not applying)
• using the complexity of the app to defraud drivers and passengers by presenting longer routes at booking time than are actually necessary, but still charging for that longer route
• skipping background checks, or doing them inadequately, or overlooking violations, for drivers (they had to pay out $8.9 million in Colorado for this)
• routing their profits through offshore companies (something taxi drivers would find extremely difficult to do)

And this is just within the United States! In Europe they were also skipping paying the kinds of license fees that legit taxis have to pay, and trying to ignore basic taxi regulations like "having insurance".



If you can point me to which of these Uber policies are good for customers, I'd love to know them.

I have no problem allowing an Uber-style model here, personally I'd be happy with the vetting etc being done by the company, but if it makes people feel better require them to get a taxi or hackney licence. However, change the rules that getting such a license only costs the administration fees and other artificial barriers to entry like requiring new ones to have wheelchair accessibility.

You could also require the company to have group insurance to cover issues arising on trips they arrange.

MJohnston wrote: »

[*]their "dynamic pricing" model which frequently rips off passengers (this is one area where regulation is 100% protecting customers)

Dynamic pricing means that customers who don't really need to really travel at a peak time don't travel.

And that customers that really need to travel, and can afford do, can travel.

It also brings drivers out on the street when they are most needed.


All sorts of businesses - including airlines and hotels - use dynamic pricing and no one gives it a second thought.

Dynamic pricing already kind of exists with the higher regulated prices that are charged during evenings and Sunday.

Stephen15 wrote: »

As far I'm concerned Uber won't do anything to reduce traffic congestion in fact would likely make it even worse as people who would otherwise use public transport may see Uber as a viable alternative especially if they don't own a car as it has done in some cities.

Actually a lot of my journeys involve collecting/dropping kids and grandparents who don't drive.

I have to go from A (where I live) where the real journey is B to C, and then I have to get back to A again.

With Uber (especially if self-driving cars come in) journeys are generally only B to C. This should on balance reduce the number of journeys.

strandroad wrote: »

Why do you think that Uber, a famously lax company will provide any of this?

If a regulated taxi breaks the rules they can lose their license. If a Uber driver breaks the rules they'll be dumped from the app that's all.

Uber took off abroad where there were no decent taxis and no apps/card payments. In Dublin the last thing we need is rando cars clogging the city cruising for business.

Read again there ......


Where did I say any of what you just did.

I'm talking about any such service hence it shouldn't be allowed and to be honest most actual taxis out there shouldn't be either.

Stephen15 wrote: »

I think we'll waiting a while longer before self driving cars fully come in as the norm. It's a bridge that can be crossed when we come to it. Even if self driving vehicles become a reality which they won't anytime soon public transport should still be prioritised.

My point still stands without self-driving cars.

strandroad wrote: »

It might only be B to C for you, but the Uber car comes from their A to collect you and then goes to D to collect another passenger. All in all they are still on the road even if you're not on board.

Literally 50% of my driving to pick up my teenager from a friend's house is superfluous to the main purpose.

Sure, the average Uber is not full all the time between rides and to/from the driver's residence. But it is much more efficiently used than 50%.

Stephen15 wrote: »

And that can be done by improving bus access to railway stations

Of course it can. But in over 30 years of DART, Dublin Bus have failed abysmally at integrating with it.

MJohnston wrote: »

I don't think this is true at all. Contactless payments? Adopted very rapidly, including Apple/Google Pay. Taxi apps? Hailo was a massive success very quickly. Deliveroo has been a huge success too. Dublin Bikes became a global model for how to successfully implement a bike-rental scheme. Mobile phone networks in Ireland are far more generous with their data plans than a lot of other countries - go and compare with USA for example. Intercom? A massively successful Irish tech startup. Daft really changed how the property market worked in Ireland long before many other countries started doing similar things (when I lived in California in 2013 they were still using Craigslist for rentals ffs).

Many of these things you mention have been available for years and have been implemented in places like South Korea,Hong Kong, Singapore and China years before Ireland.
Hailo is an app the models itself on Uber, it is also British, not Irish.
Dublin Bikes? The same model has been in many a European city years before Dublin.
Mobile Data plans? I travel a lot to Asia for work. Mobile data plans from €25 for 80GB of 4G data. You won't get that in Ireland
There has been the odd few Irish startups that have done well, like Daft as you said or Stripe which is by far the more successful. Yet the tech scene in Ireland is dominated by multinationals, very little employment in homegrown startups.

Scratch the surface of Irish society and you will see that we are not as tech savvy as you think. The Gardai use Pulse, a system that makes dial-up seem innovative.
The hospital and education systems need billions in IT upgrades to bring our public services into the 21st century. We still do not teach ICT in the classroom, but religion and Irish remain in pride of place.

Just because we use contactless payments sometimes, does not mean we are tech savvy as a nation. Just think of the public perception of Uber and Airbnb? Usually very negative, without much foundation. We as a nation do not like change too much.

Bray Head wrote: »

Uber rides are not massively subsidised by investors.

There are about four billion Uber rides per year. Uber's annual losses in 2017 were $4.5 billion......

They are still in start-up mode however, so are in the business of building market share. They are also spending huge amounts on R&D that a mature company does not need to..

• Start up business.
  
• Losses of $4.5 billion.
  
• In a service industry that has existed for well over a century all over the world.

This would suggest that they really don't know what they are doing.

trellheim wrote: »

this is not true. All the Irish techs are recruiting.

Can name on Irish tech company who employs more than 1000 people in Ireland?