Uber

makeorbrake · 18-12-2018 6:39pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

And, who decided the taxi drivers? No it was decided by the NYC council on a 39 to 6 vote, I suppose there could be 39 taxi drivers on the council but somehow I doubt it, you really do grasp at straws!

Give me a break. The U.S. is most definitely NOT immune from lobbying!!

Again, are you seriously suggesting that the taxi drivers were concerned about congestion!? I understand it - there or in Ireland - you want to protect your market. But at least be honest and say so.

Spook_ie · 18-12-2018 7:02pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

<snipped>
As regards this 'decent standard' nonsense, you're hiding behind that. A car has an NCT meaning it's safe. As has been pointed out, uber in many other countries results in a higher standard - not a lower standard.

Anyone remember the hulabaloo when taxi drivers tried the same argument as to why we didn't need an age rule!

You know perfectly well these are not supposed to be full time drivers. They're not even part time drivers. The concept was designed for people to go out and work the odd hour here and there. It is NOT reasonable to expect major investment when we all know that the cars most people have are perfectly capable of acting as a form of transport.

You apply a regulation that makes ride sharing impossible - then of course innovation is being stymied.

The taxi drivers don't make the regulations, otherwise we'd still be able to drive 15 year old Mercs and the like instead of less than 10year old basic saloons like Mondeos and Avensis's,

Good jaysus! Knowledge? I have no interest in a taxi driver talking shíte!:rolleyes:

Think knowledge is more likely to be routes orientated than general chit chat knowledge

See above - in many instances, uber cars are of a higher standard. Secondly, any car with an nct is secure and safe.

So you'd obviously like taxis to be able to compete on the same basis, no SPSV insurance, no meters just make up a price, no Garda vetting, no annual NCT unless the car is older than 10 years, no inspections, no licenses specific to areas etc.

who the *** are you to dictate to me what transport I want to access? Who are you to deprive someone like him the opportunity to go out and work for a few hours so that he can pay his way through college?

Ah yeah, this is priceless. Keep timewasters out? You mean protectionism.

Some here have stated they're taxi drivers.

Spook_ie · 18-12-2018 7:06pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

Give me a break. The U.S. is most definitely NOT immune from lobbying!!

Again, are you seriously suggesting that the taxi drivers were concerned about congestion!? I understand it - there or in Ireland - you want to protect your market. But at least be honest and say so.

So you expect the taxi drivers lobbied 39 votes for and multi billion spender Uber to only lobby 6, get real

Did you not see my post about congestion around Harcourt Street, my only concern with congestion is if it means me sitting in a traffic jam empty of paying customers.

makeorbrake · 18-12-2018 7:17pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

So you expect the taxi drivers lobbied 39 votes for and multi billion spender Uber to only lobby 6, get real

money talks.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Did you not see my post about congestion around Harcourt Street, my only concern with congestion is if it means me sitting in a traffic jam empty of paying customers.

I see - so your first consideration is not money? I mean you and the taxi drivers of new york - yer special ..no doubt.

makeorbrake · 18-12-2018 7:23pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

The taxi drivers don't make the regulations, otherwise we'd still be able to drive 15 year old Mercs and the like instead of less than 10year old basic saloons like Mondeos and Avensis's,

Even if they don't, it matters not. The regs can simply be wrong. See my point above about government and state bodies, their decisions oftentimes being wayward deliberately or due to incompetence.

Other than that, don't tell me the taxi industry doesn't lobby.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Think knowledge is more likely to be routes orientated than general chit chat knowledge

I'm not interested in routing information and I don't want to pay a premium for any such info. google maps, wayz, uber maps, etc.

Spook_ie wrote: »

So you'd obviously like taxis to be able to compete on the same basis, no SPSV insurance, no meters just make up a price, no Garda vetting, no annual NCT unless the car is older than 10 years, no inspections, no licenses specific to areas etc.

I've said it before...
- Background check
- NCT'ed car
- a license that costs no more than an admin fee
- the appropriate insurance.

Done.

end of the road · 18-12-2018 7:28pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

Even if they don't, it matters not. The regs can simply be wrong. See my point above about government and state bodies, their decisions oftentimes being wayward deliberately or due to incompetence.

Other than that, don't tell me the taxi industry doesn't lobby.

I'm not interested in routing information and I don't want to pay a premium for any such info. google maps, wayz, uber maps, etc.

I've said it before...
- Background check
- NCT'ed car
- a license that costs no more than an admin fee
- the appropriate insurance.

Done.

that's exactly what we have.

magicbastarder · 18-12-2018 7:30pm

i'd love to hear what the insurance company's response would be to 'appropriate insurance' for a driver who is using his or her car on a commercial basis.

makeorbrake · 18-12-2018 7:30pm

end of the road wrote: »

that's exactly what we have.

No, it's not! There's a requirement to go and buy a car worth 15k in the full knowledge that the idea of ride sharing is that people use their perfectly good NCT'ed car - and ride share now and again.

You know well that nobody is going to go and do that for occasional ride sharing use.

makeorbrake · 18-12-2018 7:31pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'd love to hear what the insurance company's response would be to 'appropriate insurance' for a driver who is using his or her car on a commercial basis.

Once again, there's no reason why there couldnt be an insurance product for uber drivers.

Eric Cartman · 18-12-2018 8:23pm

end of the road wrote: »

that's exactly what we have.

No, we have big stupid stickers on the side of cars, vehicle type restriction, set pricing and an admin fee that makes it not worth it for occasional use.

markodaly · 18-12-2018 10:41pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, to reiterate, a ride sharing service is no different than any other SPSV and as such falls under the same regulations.

Except when of course its not. Square pegs and round holes.

If it was a full ride-sharing service, one would be able to:

Take their existing car.
Get a background check
Pay Uber/lyft/sidecar a small nominal fee
Start taking customers via an app.....

This does not happen in Ireland, but does happen in dozens of countries where ride-sharing is legal. It does not happen because point to point car hire is a closed shop.

The minimum requirements here are too high for uber however

What exact requirement are these?

the market has seen the threat they could still pose and developed identical offerings (apps). As such there is no difference in the current offerings and the uber model.

LOL, you dont know what uber is then.
What offerings have they developed, an app? Again, you do not know what ride sharing is. Ridesharing is not just 'an app'

Literally the only thing left uber has is pricing, which thankfully, is dictated by the regulations to prevent price gouging or in ubers case, surge pricing.

Lower barrier to entry, no? LOL

Oh yea, forget the fact that I cannot get a regular taxi license, even if I had the €5,000 on hand to pay for it.

No difference whatsoever....

It should be noted that the uber pricing is based on burning through billions of capital each year to maintain artificially low prices in the hope of gaining market dominance at which point they increase the price to the detriment of customers

Uber != ridesharing, yet again.

If you are a Taxi driver, you should really get to know your industry a bit better.

markodaly · 18-12-2018 10:51pm

end of the road wrote: »

they are structured to protect the customer.

More willful lying. Its there to protect the existing Taxi drivers. We heard the same thing years ago when the Taxi drivers were against deregulation, where one had to wait hours for a taxi and where taxi plates were sold on for up to €250,000... It was all to protect the customer. You're not fooling anyone.

a ride sharing service and a taxi are the same thing, they both transport people from a to b for a fee in return. i have shared a taxi multiple times with multiple people going to different places because the drivers happened to be going my way.

Again, it's like saying AirBnB is no different than the Hilton. Both take a fee in exchange for accommodation. The willful ignorance is amusing.

it's perfectly reasonable to expect someone who is serious about providing a public transport service to the people to have to buy a high standard car

Afaik, the NTA doe not have a minimum standard of age for a Taxi.
Many ridesharing platforms like Uber actually do.

and i would think people expect their taxi drivers to be serious operators with good knowledge and a good standard car.

Why not let ridesharing see if your thesis is correct?

some student using his girlfriend's car and nonsense about empowerment doesn't cut it as a serious public transport operator.

Ah, the closed shop mentality.
'I have my taxi/job, to hell with anyone else'

licence at a cost whichincludes admin but is enough to keep time wasters out.
is what we have, and it works.

See above

markodaly · 18-12-2018 10:54pm

end of the road wrote: »

there is no protectionism or apeasement of anyone or regulation of anyone out of the market. any regulation that exists is to protect the consumer only. it doesn't matter whether you respect the regulations or not, if you want to be part of the industry you will abide by them or not be part of the industry.
uber is choosing not to enter the market here. it is in no way being prevented from doing so. ride sharing is perfectly legal, as i said taxis take multiple people all of the time and there are part time taxi drivers.

Oh Christ on a bike. Stop lying just once.

The morality of some people....

Spook_ie · 18-12-2018 11:22pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

money talks.

I see - so your first consideration is not money? I mean you and the taxi drivers of new york - yer special ..no doubt.

Yeah my first consideration is money, what in my post about not liking to sit in gridlock with an empty cab says I don't, as to money talks you really think that a load of cabbie have more financial persuasion power than Uber, get real.

Spook_ie · 18-12-2018 11:29pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

No, it's not! There's a requirement to go and buy a car worth 15k in the full knowledge that the idea of ride sharing is that people use their perfectly good NCT'ed car - and ride share now and again.

You know well that nobody is going to go and do that for occasional ride sharing use.

He is correct, he wants a return to the deregulation of 2003-2005 with even cheaper plates, you know the deregulation that everyone, including users was complaining about, that brought about the NTA, when we could put anything with 4 doors and a roof under a plate

I suppose it's kind of like fashion, it comes around again sooner or later, reminds me that I should dig out my old flares and platform shoes!

Spook_ie · 18-12-2018 11:38pm

markodaly wrote: »

Afaik, the NTA doe not have a minimum standard of age for a Taxi.
Many ridesharing platforms like Uber actually do.

Oh this guy is just trolling now, several posts have stated about the minimum requirements for putting a taxi on the road.

I suggest you go away and read the NTA website about licensing a taxi and then come back, start here just to make it easy for you

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/taxi-and-bus-licensing/taxi/spsv-vehicle-licensing-2/vehicle-requirements/vehicle-age-rules/

magicbastarder · 19-12-2018 12:00am

There is a 15 year age limit on vehicles associated with certain licences as follows:

– A standard taxi or hackney licence numbered below 45000 with which the vehicle has been continuously associated since 1 January 2013.

reminds me of q colleague who once offered to buy the taxi after a taxi ride to the airport, because the taxi fare was - without question - more than the value of the car. IIRC, the taxi driver did not see the funny side.

Spook_ie · 19-12-2018 12:08am

magicbastarder wrote: »

reminds me of q colleague who once offered to buy the taxi after a taxi ride to the airport, because the taxi fare was - without question - more than the value of the car. IIRC, the taxi driver did not see the funny side.

That 15 years is no longer valid once you change the vehicle, that's why the older cars are gradually disappearing, the only exceptions that will be over the max 10 years age are WATs

It's like my 2003 car wasn't going to be renewable in 2018 so now I have a 141 which will not be renewable after 2024 ( if it lasts that long! )

makeorbrake · 19-12-2018 6:35am

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yeah my first consideration is money, what in my post about not liking to sit in gridlock with an empty cab says I don't,

Jaysus....mother bleedin' theresa.

In the last couple of pages we seem to have 3 taxi drivers all hell bent on fiction. Nobody would pursue that fiction without a bigger motivator than the mother theresa angle..

Spook_ie wrote: »

you really think that a load of cabbie have more financial persuasion power than Uber, get real.

You mean Michael Cohen's buddy that owned 800 NY taxi licenses? Or Cohen himself who owns taxi licenses as part of his portfolio?

Spook_ie · 19-12-2018 7:19am

makeorbrake wrote: »

Jaysus....mother bleedin' theresa.

In the last couple of pages we seem to have 3 taxi drivers all hell bent on fiction. Nobody would pursue that fiction without a bigger motivator than the mother theresa angle..

You mean Michael Cohen's buddy that owned 800 NY taxi licenses? Or Cohen himself who owns taxi licenses as part of his portfolio?

Once again, what fiction I've told you I have no interest other than making a living, gridlock and me being stuck in it without a paying passenger doesn't help me realise better profits.

Bringing unlimited, unregulated Uber drivers will just add to the gridlock, NY says so after they learnt the hard way, Ireland says so after it's failed deregulation between 2003 and 2005 led to a drop in standards because of a free for all and that was when it cost €6500 for a license and the bringing in of the Taxi Regulator now part of the NTA to solve it, and now you'd like them to reverse it just because "Gig Economy" are the new buzz words to throw around.

As to Cohen and Freidmen, any more straws you'd like to pull from the ground after all the net worth for their medallions was something like zilch, 2 years before the NYC council decided that enough was enough from Uber, maybe they wrote them IOUs, or maybe the NY councils actually know something about running cities and sustainable transport infrastructure!

makeorbrake · 19-12-2018 11:13am

Spook_ie wrote: »

Once again, what fiction I've told you I have no interest other than making a living, gridlock and me being stuck in it without a paying passenger doesn't help me realise better profits.

So your first consideration is money - that colours your view as regards uber.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Ireland says so after it's failed deregulation between 2003 and 2005 led to a drop in standards because of a free for all and that was when it cost €6500 for a license and the bringing in of the Taxi Regulator now part of the NTA to solve it, and now you'd like them to reverse it just because "Gig Economy" are the new buzz words to throw around.

What free for all! You know well that the current setup effectively nullifies uber across the board - so when you talk about unlimited, we are not allowing any in real terms.
And as regards your attitude as regards 'gig economy', I have no time for the dismissal of an innovative approach just because you want to make more money! I like the idea that anyone can use their own car and go out and work dynamically for an hour here or there.

Spook_ie wrote: »

As to Cohen and Freidmen, any more straws you'd like to pull from the ground after all the net worth for their medallions was something like zilch, 2 years before the NYC council decided that enough was enough from Uber, maybe they wrote them IOUs, or maybe the NY councils actually know something about running cities and sustainable transport infrastructure!

The point was that you said that any vote in NY re. taxi's and uber could only possibly be above board. The example given shows that money talks - these two have been proven to be motivated by money.

Spook_ie · 19-12-2018 8:23pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

So your first consideration is money - that colours your view as regards uber.

What free for all! You know well that the current setup effectively nullifies uber across the board - so when you talk about unlimited, we are not allowing any in real terms.
And as regards your attitude as regards 'gig economy', I have no time for the dismissal of an innovative approach just because you want to make more money! I like the idea that anyone can use their own car and go out and work dynamically for an hour here or there.

The point was that you said that any vote in NY re. taxi's and uber could only possibly be above board. The example given shows that money talks - these two have been proven to be motivated by money.

And your view is you want cheaper travel, more drivers and vehicles on the road and allowing a general free for all, I suppose your view isn't colored at all?

In 2003 until the Taxi regulation act came in there was a free for all in that there were no restrictions to who could/couldn't put a taxi on the road, all you needed were suitable insurance, a roadworthy vehicle with solid roof and four doors ( yes that was the actual requirements under the legislation of the day ) if you had a drivers license €3 ( yes €3 not a misprint ) and could prove to the PSV inspector of whatever region you wanted to work that you knew the basics, away you went.

As I said there were so many complaints that the taxi regulation office was brought into existence.

As regards today's set up, there is NO limit to the amount of WATs or limousines you can put on the road, just meet the requirements.

makeorbrake · 19-12-2018 8:36pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

And your view is you want cheaper travel, more drivers and vehicles on the road and allowing a general free for all, I suppose your view isn't colored at all?

I don't think it's at all the same in comparison. Yes, regardless of the topic, everyone brings their own opinions, biases, etc into the conversation. However, I don't stand to benefit from this one way or the other as I don't currently live in Ireland. Secondly, even when I did (and if I do again), I wouldn't be in an area where taxi's or uber come into play anyway.

Therefore, my interest is such that I like what ride-sharing can bring. I don't like opportunities to benefit from innovation and technology to be squandered and I don't like the idea that Ireland always has to lag when it comes to adoption of various advancements.

That's not an equal comparison with your scenario where you benefit directly if there are no ubers on the road.

As regards you putting words in my mouth as regards me wanting a 'free for all', that's not accurate. Again, this is all to advance your own position.

Spook_ie wrote: »

As I said there were so many complaints that the taxi regulation office was brought into existence.

See above. I'm not suggesting deregulation. I'm suggesting that there is actual regulation for ride-sharing services because despite what you say, there certainly isnt right now. There are taxi regulations. There's no consideration of ride sharing.

Spook_ie wrote: »

As regards today's set up, there is NO limit to the amount of WATs or limousines you can put on the road, just meet the requirements.

You keep on repeating the same nonsense and it's completely and utterly disingenuous.
There is NO regulation for ride-sharing services. Everyone knows that if someone has to go out and spend 15k on a specific vehicle, that automatically precludes the notion of ride-sharing.
I have no issue with regulation. The issue is that there is no regulation - those requirements are set for taxi services - its as clear as night and day.

Eric Cartman · 19-12-2018 8:46pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

And your view is you want cheaper travel, more drivers and vehicles on the road and allowing a general free for all, I suppose your view isn't colored at all?

In 2003 until the Taxi regulation act came in there was a free for all in that there were no restrictions to who could/couldn't put a taxi on the road, all you needed were suitable insurance, a roadworthy vehicle with solid roof and four doors ( yes that was the actual requirements under the legislation of the day ) if you had a drivers license €3 ( yes €3 not a misprint ) and could prove to the PSV inspector of whatever region you wanted to work that you knew the basics, away you went.

As I said there were so many complaints that the taxi regulation office was brought into existence.

As regards today's set up, there is NO limit to the amount of WATs or limousines you can put on the road, just meet the requirements.

and what were the complaints based on though ? the vehicles had to be roadworthy , on the street you can choose a cab, elsewhere you can have ranks / apps that specify what they want. I'd much rather a lad came to get me in a 2003 s-class than a brand new dacia. I know the biggest complaint at the time was from other taxi drivers peeved that 'de niiiiigeeeriaaannnss' had come to steal all their jobs, still to this day I get in a taxi with an irish lad from the old school who normally still have the 'tacsai' sign on their roof and they'll wait about 40 seconds before saying something about the nigerians all scamming people for longer fares or robbing people etc..

Im sure a lot of the complaints from normal people were about going the wrong way etc.. not really an issue anymore in the gps enabled app economy.

Spook_ie · 19-12-2018 11:48pm

Eric Cartman wrote: »

and what were the complaints based on though ? the vehicles had to be roadworthy , on the street you can choose a cab, elsewhere you can have ranks / apps that specify what they want. I'd much rather a lad came to get me in a 2003 s-class than a brand new dacia. I know the biggest complaint at the time was from other taxi drivers peeved that 'de niiiiigeeeriaaannnss' had come to steal all their jobs, still to this day I get in a taxi with an irish lad from the old school who normally still have the 'tacsai' sign on their roof and they'll wait about 40 seconds before saying something about the nigerians all scamming people for longer fares or robbing people etc..

Im sure a lot of the complaints from normal people were about going the wrong way etc.. not really an issue anymore in the gps enabled app economy.

Well actually they only have to pass the NCT, that doesn't always mean it's roadworthy a month later, as it is now you get so many cars with headlights out and earthing problems that make brake lights into pseudo indicators, I would be in favour of something along the lines of the NY commission of police serving notice to take the cab off the road until visual problems are fixed or alternatively GS actually enforcing RT rules about headlights etc.

As regards the age rule many drivers wanted the SGS to be the decider of if a taxi was too clapped out, interior wise or not and a valid NCT being the safety aspect of it, but too late for that now people and taxi regulator wanted younger vehicles with better safety features and less emissions, which I actually now agree with, I didn't originally but we can all change our minds.

Spook_ie · 20-12-2018 5:17am

makeorbrake wrote: »

I don't think it's at all the same in comparison. Yes, regardless of the topic, everyone brings their own opinions, biases, etc into the conversation. However, I don't stand to benefit from this one way or the other as I don't currently live in Ireland. Secondly, even when I did (and if I do again), I wouldn't be in an area where taxi's or uber come into play anyway.

Therefore, my interest is such that I like what ride-sharing can bring. I don't like opportunities to benefit from innovation and technology to be squandered and I don't like the idea that Ireland always has to lag when it comes to adoption of various advancements.

That's not an equal comparison with your scenario where you benefit directly if there are no ubers on the road.

As regards you putting words in my mouth as regards me wanting a 'free for all', that's not accurate. Again, this is all to advance your own position.

See above. I'm not suggesting deregulation. I'm suggesting that there is actual regulation for ride-sharing services because despite what you say, there certainly isnt right now. There are taxi regulations. There's no consideration of ride sharing.

You keep on repeating the same nonsense and it's completely and utterly disingenuous.
There is NO regulation for ride-sharing services. Everyone knows that if someone has to go out and spend 15k on a specific vehicle, that automatically precludes the notion of ride-sharing.
I have no issue with regulation. The issue is that there is no regulation - those requirements are set for taxi services - its as clear as night and day.

There is no requirement for Uber style ride sharing being provided by non licensed vehicles in Ireland save in your mind, ride sharing in Ireland where desired by the users is provided by duly licensed vehicles and drivers.

You are however free to lobby the NTA to get them to change their mind and opt for unlicensed drivers and vehicles or whatever you might think fits the Uber bill or ride sharing in general as I'm sure that Lyft and Mytaxi would welcome additional revenue streams as much as Uber, in fact the NTA actually welcome suggestions from people who use the services of Irish public transport systems, maybe they'll even read suggestions from people who don't avail of the services here for whatever reason.

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/public-consultations/

makeorbrake · 20-12-2018 6:19am

Spook_ie wrote: »

There is no requirement for Uber style ride sharing being provided by non licensed vehicles in Ireland save in your mind, ride sharing in Ireland where desired by the users is provided by duly licensed vehicles and drivers.##

There's no requirement for uber except in my mind? Trust me (and you know this if you're honest about it even for one second), consumers would vote with their feet and abandon taxi's for uber given the choice. I don't have any respect for a jurisdiction that disadvantages its citizens in favour of some lobby such as yours.

Spook_ie wrote: »

You are however free to lobby the NTA to get them to change their mind and opt for unlicensed drivers and vehicles or whatever you might think fits the Uber bill or ride sharing in general as I'm sure that Lyft and Mytaxi would welcome additional revenue streams as much as Uber, in fact the NTA actually welcome suggestions from people who use the services of Irish public transport systems, maybe they'll even read suggestions from people who don't avail of the services here for whatever reason.

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/public-consultations/

You're fine - I'll continue to stay where I am - and enjoy the convenience of utilising uber's service.

24-12-2018 12:37pm

Something from last Dec that should hopefully clarify things for some folks

EU Court of Justice ruled Uber is to be considered as a transport services company

https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2017/dec/20/uber-european-court-of-justice-ruling-barcelona-taxi-drivers-ecj-eu

Uber is a transport services company, the European court of justice (ECJ) has ruled, requiring it to accept stricter regulation and licensing within the EU as a taxi operator

LuckyLloyd · 25-12-2018 1:19pm

Of course it’s a transport company. Trying to paint itself as a ‘tech’ company is a tiny part of the web of disingenuous arguments made for Uber.

P_1 · 25-12-2018 1:28pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

There is no requirement for Uber style ride sharing being provided by non licensed vehicles in Ireland save in your mind, ride sharing in Ireland where desired by the users is provided by duly licensed vehicles and drivers.

You are however free to lobby the NTA to get them to change their mind and opt for unlicensed drivers and vehicles or whatever you might think fits the Uber bill or ride sharing in general as I'm sure that Lyft and Mytaxi would welcome additional revenue streams as much as Uber, in fact the NTA actually welcome suggestions from people who use the services of Irish public transport systems, maybe they'll even read suggestions from people who don't avail of the services here for whatever reason.

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/public-consultations/

Trouble is for lack of a better description, theres a negative bias against a certain cohort of taxi drivers. For example I'd rather walk than take a taxi from the rank at the likes of oconnoll street.

Furthermore we're almost back in the bad old days in terms of supply on a Friday or Saturday evening.

Now the choices to resolve that are either increased public transport at night or increasing the supply of drivers.

I've used uber in the UK, its handy, you can see where your taxi is and you don't need to mess about with cash. Try asking your average Dublin taxi driver if they take card and they'd look at you as if you have 2 heads

Uber

Comments