Uber

makeorbrake · 10-07-2019 6:33pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

You can't print out a taxi decal and slap it on the side of your car, you would need to go to an official supplier who has then to check with the NTA that you have a current license, it requires a 5 digit number printed on it which has to match both the roof sign and the disks in the front and rear windows, if that's making some kind of point for you, well then yeah. I suppose you could go to some illicit print shop and get it done, steal a roofsign and forge some id disks but would seem far easier to print an A4 sheet on your pc printer.

It's not necessary. You suggest that it is and that its a security feature that trumps ride sharing. I don't. We can go round in circles as long as you want but we won't be agreeing on that.

Spook_ie wrote: »

You really haven't much idea of how real people think and work in the real world.

Right. That's what you pay for when you sit into a taxi, right?:rolleyes:

Spook_ie · 10-07-2019 6:36pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

It's not necessary. You suggest that it is and that its a security feature that trumps ride sharing. I don't. We can go round in circles as long as you want but we won't be agreeing on that.

Right. That's what you pay for when you sit into a taxi, right?:rolleyes:

No thats just an observation of you and your style of debate and apparent real world experience. You can have that without paying.

makeorbrake · 10-07-2019 6:44pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

No thats just an observation of you and your style of debate and apparent real world experience. You can have that without paying.

Why thank you. And yet you all discuss Uber and ridesharing and it seems none of you use it - yet you're the learned one. Every day's a school day

usernamegoes · 10-07-2019 7:57pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

So you agree then, that Uber and yourselves want to reduce the regulations, for what end would the regulations need reducing and by how much?

(Edit...) BTW I said under insured not uninsured ( end of edit... )

Those of us not affected by having skin-in-the-game or warped ideology are advocating for a ride-sharing regulation that would have appropriate regulation that is not an artificial barrier to entry to appease a taxi lobby and keep a cushy number in the regulator's office.

No one has argued for under-insurance either. Can you describe what kind of under-insurance you think there my be by allowing ride-sharing and we can address that.

end of the road · 10-07-2019 10:04pm

usernamegoes wrote: »

Those of us not affected by having skin-in-the-game or warped ideology are advocating for a ride-sharing regulation that would have appropriate regulation that is not an artificial barrier to entry to appease a taxi lobby and keep a cushy number in the regulator's office.

No one has argued for under-insurance either. Can you describe what kind of under-insurance you think there my be by allowing ride-sharing and we can address that.

the type of regulation you are arguing for is what we have.

Spook_ie · 10-07-2019 10:46pm

end of the road wrote: »

the type of regulation you are arguing for is what we have.

Of course it's not what they want, they can't say what they want because they don't know them selves, just that they want "IT", whatever it is.

As far as I can see, Username just wants removal of WAV and makenbrake doesn't know what it is but it must have a solution somewhere, somehow. Not sure about N97 maybe he'll come back and tell us what "it" is that he wants.

makeorbrake · 10-07-2019 10:56pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Of course it's not what they want, they can't say what they want because they don't know them selves, just that they want "IT", whatever it is.

As far as I can see, Username just wants removal of WAV and makenbrake doesn't know what it is but it must have a solution somewhere, somehow. Not sure about N97 maybe he'll come back and tell us what "it" is that he wants.

This is what your power of 'discussion' amounts to. How sad.

Let me assist you as you're clearly struggling.

- I want the regulatory conditions for ride sharing services to be enabled - such that irish consumers have access to such services. And NO, those conditions are not in place and NO, it doesn't involve an unlevel playing field as taxi'ing is not ride sharing. That means that another approach has to be taken on the WAV issue. As regards how, I've already discussed that - go back and read it - but you won't be able to claim the 'somewhere, somehow' routine and maintain any credibility.

That saucy enough for ye ?

Spook_ie · 10-07-2019 11:55pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

This is what your power of 'discussion' amounts to. How sad.

Let me assist you as you're clearly struggling.

- I want the regulatory conditions for ride sharing services to be enabled - such that irish consumers have access to such services. And NO, those conditions are not in place and NO, it doesn't involve an unlevel playing field as taxi'ing is not ride sharing. That means that another approach has to be taken on the WAV issue. As regards how, I've already discussed that - go back and read it - but you won't be able to claim the 'somewhere, somehow' routine and maintain any credibility.

That saucy enough for ye ?

And yet so many posts later you still haven't come up with anything other than the mantra of "allow ridesharing" with no input as to how they should allow ridesharing.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ok, fine. Various incentives can be offered by the state to induce more WAV's onto the streets in terms of public transport. That can be done in the context of separate regulation/licensing of Taxi's and ride sharing. Such incentives do not necessitate the stunting of the development of ride sharing in Ireland.

One more approach....The relevant authorities could collaborate with ride sharing services (such as uber but not limited to uber) to bring about an innovative solution to the problem or to manipulate licensing such that more WAV's are induced yet ride sharing in Ireland is not killed off at source.

Uber and Lyft are both involved in schemes in the U.S. where they collaborate with public transit authorities in order to extend the reach of public transit systems i.e. services are combined with uber/lyft providing the 'last mile' service - getting more people onto public transport seamlessly with combined ticketing.

Innovative approaches are possible if the will is there. However, if it suits certain stakeholders interests NOT to find such a solution, then none will be found. I have provided an outline of potential approaches to the problem as per the Mod's post. That doesn't put me under an obligation to present a detailed development plan for taxi services, ride sharing services, etc. in Ireland as part of a discussion on a public forum.

I still maintain that whilst it will require some innovative thinking, greater problems are solved week in - week out around the world. It's very much possible if the will is there.

Yet, I was the only one to invite others to 'agree to disagree' rather than attempts to dominate the conversation and to try to disengage from that vortex.
You'll appreciate that I'm taking a viewpoint that whilst I'd wager is popular among those who have ever had the opportunity to use ride sharing services, is a minority view in terms of active participants on this thread. With that, I'd hope that it makes for healthy debate and discussion to facilitate all viewpoints rather than allow one viewpoint to dominate proceedings. That would be tantamount to an echo chamber.

makeorbrake · 11-07-2019 12:29am

Spook_ie wrote: »

And yet so many posts later you still haven't come up with anything other than the mantra of "allow ridesharing" with no input as to how they should allow ridesharing.

Firstly, you were wrong in your pen ultimate post - just as you're wrong right now. The very first part of this is to take the blatant protectionist measures out of the way. This 'discussion' has not evolved to a level whereby there's even any point in discussing the finer points of implementation.

I'm quite happy to do that - but I'm not going to engage on that level with people who are hell bent on blocking ANY form of ride sharing (not taxi-ing).

Afterall, I didn't come here with skin in the game / self interest / wayward ideology as baggage.

Spook_ie · 11-07-2019 12:33am

makeorbrake wrote: »

Firstly, you were wrong in your pen ultimate post - just as you're wrong right now. The very first part of this is to take the blatant protectionist measures out of the way. This 'discussion' has not evolved to a level whereby there's even any point in discussing the finer points of implementation.

I'm quite happy to do that - but I'm not going to engage on that level with people who are hell bent on blocking ANY form of ride sharing (not taxi-ing).

Afterall, I didn't come here with skin in the game / self interest / wayward ideology as baggage.

Put up a reasoned argument then instead of your "We have to regulate for ridesharing" when ridesharing is already regulated for.

makeorbrake · 11-07-2019 12:39am

Spook_ie wrote: »

Put up a reasoned argument then instead of your "We have to regulate for ridesharing" when ridesharing is already regulated for.

My reaction to that statement is that it is completely inaccurate in its formation. I've diligently put forward a reasoned argument. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't align with your world view.

Countless times I've pointed out that ridesharing and taxi-ing are NOT one and the same thing. You don't agree - then that's fine. We can agree to disagree but that's where it ends.

Spook_ie · 11-07-2019 1:12am

makeorbrake wrote: »

My reaction to that statement is that it is completely inaccurate in its formation. I've diligently put forward a reasoned argument. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't align with your world view.

Countless times I've pointed out that ridesharing and taxi-ing are NOT one and the same thing. You don't agree - then that's fine. We can agree to disagree but that's where it ends.

Rideshare is public transport, in that it transports paying members of the public from A to B, the NTA regulate all public transport, if Uber want to work in Ireland they work to the NTA public transport regulations with regard to the class of vehicle be that a limousine, a hackney or a taxi.

At the end of the day, which is more likely to have customer interests at heart, a public body answerable to the government (and thereby the people it serves ) or a profit driven company who answer only to their shareholders over a profit or loss?

makeorbrake · 11-07-2019 1:24am

Spook_ie wrote: »

Rideshare is public transport, in that it transports paying members of the public from A to B, the NTA regulate all public transport, if Uber want to work in Ireland they work to the NTA public transport regulations with regard to the class of vehicle be that a limousine, a hackney or a taxi.

And as often happens with regulations, they need to be updated to account for technological development - and that can also mean the creation of a separate regulation. You want them lumped in (and otherwise ignored) as it suits your purposes and viewpoint.

Spook_ie wrote: »

At the end of the day, which is more likely to have customer interests at heart, a public body answerable to the government (and thereby the people it serves ) or a profit driven company who answer only to their shareholders over a profit or loss?

Hmm...I guess that's why I suggested that the regulator needs to do their job - quit the protectionism and apply regulation that is pro innovation. I'm not aware of anyone here who has argued for NO regulation whatsoever.

There are more stakeholders here than just users of ride sharing services. There are the would-be drivers - and society as a whole. You might bear that in mind in your considerations.

LuckyLloyd · 11-07-2019 7:09am

There is clearly no technological development here that would demand an update of regulation. The Uber app behaves the same as the FreeNow app (formerly MyTaxi) and the “rideshare” service is the same as a taxi.

Most crucially, the Uber app itself operates here in Dublin the same as it does in San Francisco, which proves there is no technological reason for them to be treated differently by the regulator.

Spook_ie · 11-07-2019 7:36am

makeorbrake wrote: »

And as often happens with regulations, they need to be updated to account for technological development - and that can also mean the creation of a separate regulation. You want them lumped in (and otherwise ignored) as it suits your purposes and viewpoint.

There is no technological development other than how a customer requests a ride. Fulfilling that ride isn't technological advancement.

Hmm...I guess that's why I suggested that the regulator needs to do their job - quit the protectionism and apply regulation that is pro innovation. I'm not aware of anyone here who has argued for NO regulation whatsoever.

There are more stakeholders here than just users of ride sharing services. There are the would-be drivers - and society as a whole. You might bear that in mind in your considerations.

I already have and there is no reason to allow people to use their own cars with minimal regulations.

Let's try a different approach.

Does a driver require commercial or hire and reward insurance. Yes/No

Does a vehicle require a current NCT at all times. Yes/No

Does a vehicle require registering to ensure it meets with size limits. Yes/No

Does a vehicle require perodic inspection to ensure it's fit for purpose and not modified in a way contarary to its registration to carry passengers. Yes/No

Does a vehicle require mandatory signage to identify it to people easily Yes/No

Does a driver require a background check. Yes/No

If a background check is required should it include driving offences. Yes/No

Should a driver be limited to areas specific to where he knows or lives and works Yes/No

Should a driver be able to work anywhere because of SatNav Yes/No

Should a driver undergo peridocical medicals/ health checks. Yes/No

Should a driver be required to register with revenue that they have a 2nd source of income Yes/No

Should a driver be required to be tax compliant at all times. Yes/No

Should a driver have to notify a regulatory body of the vehicle they are driving Yes/No

They'll do to be going on with I'm sure there's probably more that deeper reflection will throw up.

makeorbrake · 11-07-2019 8:47am

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

There is clearly no technological development here that would demand an update of regulation. The Uber app behaves the same as the FreeNow app (formerly MyTaxi) and the “rideshare” service is the same as a taxi.

Spook_ie wrote: »

There is no technological development other than how a customer requests a ride. Fulfilling that ride isn't technological advancement.

You want to go back over this and rake through it one more time when it's clear we don't agree...fine.

See previous posts. Experts on innovation have flagged Uber as being innovative.

- You can squeal all you want but the arrival of the use of apps has been innovative. You can claim that the taxi industry brought this in. It was brought in by tech companies.
That taxi companies followed - is a clear indication that that in isolation was innovative.

Secondly that there is no other innovation other than the app is to misunderstand the whole concept - and that misunderstanding (whether feigned or real....and probably both on this thread by various posters) mean's your missing the whole point.

Look up "innovation" and the "sharing economy". If you don't understand what the 'sharing economy' is and how it has been enabled, then we have nothing to talk about (aside from the fact that you're just plain wrong).

Additionally, many here seem to be unable to grasp that this goes far beyond the person seeking a car/lift in terms of innovation. Enabling the ability of people to use their own cars - and potentially to participate in that sharing economy by switching on the app when they're driving a long commute or other journey is powerful. It means a far greater efficiency in how we use our existing car fleet. It means both parties to that journey can achieve greater efficiency in that they both save $ - and they can do so without there being a fall off in quality/service....quite the opposite.

The app is central to the offering - but that isn't the only aspect of it.

You want to keep your heads in the sand - go right ahead. Its truly backward but go right ahead.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Most crucially, the Uber app itself operates here in Dublin the same as it does in San Francisco, which proves there is no technological reason for them to be treated differently by the regulator.

Well does it really? Well do you want to explain then why during my time in SF, I couldn't find a taxi - and could only access uber and lyft whilst in Dublin all we effectively have are taxis? Do you want to explain why if you ask anyone on the streets of Dublin do we have Uber, they'll tell you we don't? Maybe its because (in reality) we dont!?

Spook_ie wrote: »

there is no reason to allow people to use their own cars with minimal regulations.

There is EVERY reason to allow it with sane regulations - and the WAV requirement is in effect a blanket ban and barrier to entry.

Either you don't understand how a dynamic sharing economy works in this sense or you know very well and want to shut it out. The innovation is a combination of the app approach and then harnessing that tech to pair passenger and driver. A driver that would otherwise be going that direction or a driver who wants to work for a couple of hours with a car that would otherwise be sitting in his driveway.

Spook_ie · 11-07-2019 9:19am

makeorbrake wrote: »

You want to go back over this and rake through it one more time when it's clear we don't agree...fine.

See previous posts. Experts on innovation have flagged Uber as being innovative.

- You can squeal all you want but the arrival of the use of apps has been innovative. You can claim that the taxi industry brought this in. It was brought in by tech companies.
That taxi companies followed - is a clear indication that that in isolation was innovative.

Secondly that there is no other innovation other than the app is to misunderstand the whole concept - and that misunderstanding (whether feigned or real....and probably both on this thread by various posters) mean's your missing the whole point.

Look up "innovation" and the "sharing economy". If you don't understand what the 'sharing economy' is and how it has been enabled, then we have nothing to talk about (aside from the fact that you're just plain wrong).

Additionally, many here seem to be unable to grasp that this goes far beyond the person seeking a car/lift in terms of innovation. Enabling the ability of people to use their own cars - and potentially to participate in that sharing economy by switching on the app when they're driving a long commute or other journey is powerful. It means a far greater efficiency in how we use our existing car fleet. It means both parties to that journey can achieve greater efficiency in that they both save $ - and they can do so without there being a fall off in quality/service....quite the opposite.

The app is central to the offering - but that isn't the only aspect of it.

You want to keep your heads in the sand - go right ahead. Its truly backward but go right ahead.

Well does it really? Well do you want to explain then why during my time in SF, I couldn't find a taxi - and could only access uber and lyft whilst in Dublin all we effectively have are taxis? Do you want to explain why if you ask anyone on the streets of Dublin do we have Uber, they'll tell you we don't? Maybe its because (in reality) we dont!?

There is EVERY reason to allow it with sane regulations - and the WAV requirement is in effect a blanket ban and barrier to entry.

Either you don't understand how a dynamic sharing economy works in this sense or you know very well and want to shut it out. The innovation is a combination of the app approach and then harnessing that tech to pair passenger and driver. A driver that would otherwise be going that direction or a driver who wants to work for a couple of hours with a car that would otherwise be sitting in his driveway.

So I notice you can't ( even when given examples ) decide on what sort of regulation you think the NTA should bring in or waive to allow Uber to operate in Ireland, hardly takes a genius to realise you just haven't a notion other than Uber, Innovation, Sharing Economy and other buzz words to throw around.

makeorbrake · 11-07-2019 9:31am

Spook_ie wrote: »

So I notice you can't ( even when given examples ) decide on what sort of regulation you think the NTA should bring in or waive to allow Uber to operate in Ireland, hardly takes a genius to realise you just haven't a notion other than Uber, Innovation, Sharing Economy and other buzz words to throw around.

You can be as disingenous as you want. The post youre referring to was in response to both of your claims that there's no innovation to be seen here.

You're also going back over ground covered. Other than that, I clearly stated that the WAV requirement needs to be dropped. I also have stated consistently that regulation should be completely separate as ride sharing and taxi'ing are not the same. Perhaps you have memory issues. I'd get that checked out if I was you.

As regards 'sharing economy' being a 'buzzword' how embarrassing for you.

LuckyLloyd · 11-07-2019 9:42am

Saying ‘but it’s innovative because innovation experts have said so’ isn’t much of an argument.

Throughout the course of this thread you have failed:

- to differentiate the Uber app from MyTaxi
- to differentiate ridesharing from taxiing

I look forward to the next one thousand posts of tail chasing though...

Meanwhile I can use the Uber app in Dublin, proving the tech benefits have indeed been delivered to me, the customer.

kippy · 11-07-2019 9:42am

makeorbrake wrote: »

You want to go back over this and rake through it one more time when it's clear we don't agree...fine.

See previous posts. Experts on innovation have flagged Uber as being innovative.

- You can squeal all you want but the arrival of the use of apps has been innovative. You can claim that the taxi industry brought this in. It was brought in by tech companies.
That taxi companies followed - is a clear indication that that in isolation was innovative.

Secondly that there is no other innovation other than the app is to misunderstand the whole concept - and that misunderstanding (whether feigned or real....and probably both on this thread by various posters) mean's your missing the whole point.

Look up "innovation" and the "sharing economy". If you don't understand what the 'sharing economy' is and how it has been enabled, then we have nothing to talk about (aside from the fact that you're just plain wrong).

Additionally, many here seem to be unable to grasp that this goes far beyond the person seeking a car/lift in terms of innovation. Enabling the ability of people to use their own cars - and potentially to participate in that sharing economy by switching on the app when they're driving a long commute or other journey is powerful. It means a far greater efficiency in how we use our existing car fleet. It means both parties to that journey can achieve greater efficiency in that they both save $ - and they can do so without there being a fall off in quality/service....quite the opposite.

The app is central to the offering - but that isn't the only aspect of it.

You want to keep your heads in the sand - go right ahead. Its truly backward but go right ahead.

Well does it really? Well do you want to explain then why during my time in SF, I couldn't find a taxi - and could only access uber and lyft whilst in Dublin all we effectively have are taxis? Do you want to explain why if you ask anyone on the streets of Dublin do we have Uber, they'll tell you we don't? Maybe its because (in reality) we dont!?

There is EVERY reason to allow it with sane regulations - and the WAV requirement is in effect a blanket ban and barrier to entry.

Either you don't understand how a dynamic sharing economy works in this sense or you know very well and want to shut it out. The innovation is a combination of the app approach and then harnessing that tech to pair passenger and driver. A driver that would otherwise be going that direction or a driver who wants to work for a couple of hours with a car that would otherwise be sitting in his driveway.

makeorbrake wrote: »

You can be as disingenous as you want. The post youre referring to was in response to both of your claims that there's no innovation to be seen here.

You're also going back over ground covered. Other than that, I clearly stated that the WAV requirement needs to be dropped. I also have stated consistently that regulation should be completely separate as ride sharing and taxi'ing are not the same. Perhaps you have memory issues. I'd get that checked out if I was you.

As regards 'sharing economy' being a 'buzzword' how embarrassing for you.

This is the issue, Taxi'ng and "ride sharing" are ultimately the same thing. Zero difference.

kippy · 11-07-2019 9:44am

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Saying ‘but it’s innovative because innovation experts have said so’ isn’t much of an argument.

Throughout the course of this thread you have failed:

- to differentiate the Uber app from MyTaxi
- to differentiate ridesharing from taxiing

I look forward to the next one thousand posts of tail chasing though...

Indeed, the poster is happy to take on board these experts opinion but wasn't eager to take on board the experts that stated that Uber was a transport company.

Spook_ie · 11-07-2019 9:48am

makeorbrake wrote: »

You can be as disingenous as you want. The post youre referring to was in response to both of your claims that there's no innovation to be seen here.

You're also going back over ground covered. Other than that, I clearly stated that the WAV requirement needs to be dropped. I also have stated consistently that regulation should be completely separate as ride sharing and taxi'ing are not the same. Perhaps you have memory issues. I'd get that checked out if I was you.

As regards 'sharing economy' being a 'buzzword' how embarrassing for you.

Regulations are nothing to do with taxiing, majority of regulations are for use of any SPSV in Ireland, so which ones do you think we should soften up for Uber? Or is it just the WAV that has your knickers twisted, which as explained several times, in much greater detail than you deserve with your attitude, are government policy. Which may or may not change in 2020.

Spook_ie · 11-07-2019 1:00pm

usernamegoes wrote: »

Those of us not affected by having skin-in-the-game or warped ideology are advocating for a ride-sharing regulation that would have appropriate regulation that is not an artificial barrier to entry to appease a taxi lobby and keep a cushy number in the regulator's office.

I'll ask you the same questions I asked makenbake

Let's try a different approach.

Does a driver require commercial or hire and reward insurance. Yes/No

Does a vehicle require a current NCT at all times. Yes/No

Does a vehicle require registering to ensure it meets with size limits. Yes/No

Does a vehicle require perodic inspection to ensure it's fit for purpose and not modified in a way contarary to its registration to carry passengers. Yes/No

Does a vehicle require mandatory signage to identify it to people easily Yes/No

Does a driver require a background check. Yes/No

If a background check is required should it include driving offences. Yes/No

Should a driver be limited to areas specific to where he knows or lives and works Yes/No

Should a driver be able to work anywhere because of SatNav Yes/No

Should a driver undergo peridocical medicals/ health checks. Yes/No

Should a driver be required to register with revenue that they have a 2nd source of income Yes/No

Should a driver be required to be tax compliant at all times. Yes/No

Should a driver have to notify a regulatory body of the vehicle they are driving Yes/No

They'll do to be going on with I'm sure there's probably more that deeper reflection will throw up.

No one has argued for under-insurance either. Can you describe what kind of under-insurance you think there my be by allowing ride-sharing and we can address that.

Under insurance would be any insurance that didn't fully cover the driver of a vehicle for "Hire and Reward" as it's known in Ireland.

makeorbrake · 11-07-2019 2:16pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Regulations are nothing to do with taxiing, majority of regulations are for use of any SPSV in Ireland

Eh, you can come at it which ever way you want. I'm calling for separate regulation for ride sharing. You don't like that - but that doesn't mean to say that it can't be done.

Spook_ie wrote: »

so which ones do you think we should soften up for Uber?

I have not called for anything to be 'softened up'. I've called for pro-innovation regulation for ride sharing (you'll note that's not specifically in support of any one platform or company).

Spook_ie wrote: »

Or is it just the WAV that has your knickers twisted, which as explained several times, in much greater detail than you deserve with your attitude, are government policy. Which may or may not change in 2020.

'With my attitude'..:D....temper, temper!

It's very simple really. The regulator needs to look and see what is preventing the enabling of ride sharing in Ireland and fix that. Clearly, the WAV/licensing thing is first and foremost.

Spook_ie · 11-07-2019 3:48pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

Eh, you can come at it which ever way you want. I'm calling for separate regulation for ride sharing. You don't like that - but that doesn't mean to say that it can't be done.

So you want seperate regulation for ridesharing but still have no input as to what the regulations might or might not encompass, I really do believe it's pointless trying to ask you anything of meaning.

I have not called for anything to be 'softened up'. I've called for pro-innovation regulation for ride sharing (you'll note that's not specifically in support of any one platform or company).

If it's not softening up of the current SPSV regulations that you want, then try fleshing out your idea of ride sharing regulation, which you have been asked about several times, but continue to give disparaging non answers, along the lines of "doesn't mean to say that it can't be done."

'With my attitude'..:D....temper, temper!

Not exactly temper, more frustration at your inability to give an answer to a question you yourself keep putting forward, someone must fix it, well the regulator has fixed it "No Uber unless it fits within SPSV regulations" The only thing that the regulator can do is bring in an entirely new class of SPSV and regulate for that, but don't expect the SPSV regulations to vary much from what they already are. Lessening the regulations leaves the NTA and Government open to being sued by any passenger/driver being injured, wronged, attacked or whatever.

It's very simple really. The regulator needs to look and see what is preventing the enabling of ride sharing in Ireland and fix that. Clearly, the WAV/licensing thing is first and foremost.

There is NOTHING in the regulations preventing ridesharing, unless you tell us which regulations you think are preventing it then your argument is vexatious and non existent,
Once again I refer you to previous answers about WAVs and suggest you decide what the argument is if they allow more licenses after 2020, as the anti WAV argument is a non runner given the governments committal to supporting the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

makeorbrake · 11-07-2019 5:10pm

kippy wrote: »

This is the issue, Taxi'ng and "ride sharing" are ultimately the same thing. Zero difference.

That's your opinion. You're entitled to it -but it isn't mine and it's not going to be.

kippy wrote: »

Indeed, the poster is happy to take on board these experts opinion but wasn't eager to take on board the experts that stated that Uber was a transport company.

That cuts both ways albeit there's a distinction. I acknowledged the ECJ ruling - but I also pointed out that as a global company and their own position - that's not their take and that's not the belief in some other jurisdictions.
That's the difference.

Spook_ie wrote: »

So you want seperate regulation for ridesharing but still have no input as to what the regulations might or might not encompass, I really do believe it's pointless trying to ask you anything of meaning.

I have provided input. What it is pointless trying to do is to have me state what you want. I can't do that as I fundamentally don't agree with you. That's not going to change. The sane thing here is to agree to disagree...or you can compell me to keep coming back and responding to the same claims that you make with my same position. Up to you.

Spook_ie wrote: »

If it's not softening up of the current SPSV regulations that you want, then try fleshing out your idea of ride sharing regulation, which you have been asked about several times, but continue to give disparaging non answers, along the lines of "doesn't mean to say that it can't be done."

I didn't suggest 'softening up' anything. I suggested separate regulation and a move away from the protectionism that's currently going on. As regards input, I've provided it - you just chose to ignore it.'

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not exactly temper, more frustration at your inability to give an answer to a question you yourself keep putting forward, someone must fix it, well the regulator has fixed it "No Uber unless it fits within SPSV regulations" The only thing that the regulator can do is bring in an entirely new class of SPSV and regulate for that, but don't expect the SPSV regulations to vary much from what they already are. Lessening the regulations leaves the NTA and Government open to being sued by any passenger/driver being injured, wronged, attacked or whatever.

You keep trying to suggest that regulation is a straightjacket. A regulator with the will could set in train fit for purpose regulation for ridesharing if they wanted. Simple as that.

Spook_ie wrote: »

There is NOTHING in the regulations preventing ridesharing, unless you tell us which regulations you think are preventing it then your argument is vexatious and non existent,
Once again I refer you to previous answers about WAVs and suggest you decide what the argument is if they allow more licenses after 2020, as the anti WAV argument is a non runner given the governments committal to supporting the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Yet we don't have a market that has been ride sharing enabled - as it's nonexistent on the streets of ireland - yet it exists in other jurisdictions. Clearly, the regulator is doing something wrong - and no, that doesn't mean no regulation, it doesn't mean watering down or softening up anything. It means taking a pro-innovative approach. By the way, if - through the enablement of ride sharing - its such a success as taxi'ing drops off - i'm fine with that. That would be the case of industrial change. I'm not in favour of propping up fellas for the sake of it - which is at the heart of the naysayers argument here.

As regards the WAV, there is no reason that both ride sharing and WAV availability can't both be tackled (and yes, before anyone suggests otherwise, I have suggested ways in which that could be tackled).

n97 mini · 11-07-2019 6:11pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Which part of the sentence do you class as a lie?

Uber self insures.

All drivers are registered and vetted by Uber to a higher standard than the taxi licencing authorities.

By its very nature it's not possible to flag down a bogus driver or one with a criminal record. Neither is true for taxis.

usernamegoes · 11-07-2019 6:28pm

kippy wrote: »

This is the issue, Taxi'ng and "ride sharing" are ultimately the same thing. Zero difference.

By your logic I suppose taxing and hackneys are the same thing and don't require separate regulation. It's a view, not mine, but it's a view nonetheless.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Under insurance would be any insurance that didn't fully cover the driver of a vehicle for "Hire and Reward" as it's known in Ireland.

Require drivers to have adequate insurance like other countries have. Require all dispatch operators to full cover the trips taken if the driver's insurance fails for whatever reason as Uber do now. Who cover the costs if my taxis insurance isnt paid or otherwise invalidated?

Does a driver require commercial or hire and reward insurance. Yes/No
Yes. As in other countries a market will develop. Extra protection by having the dispatch operator provide supplemental and backup insurance as Uber do. Do 8202020?

Does a vehicle require a current NCT at all times. Yes/No
Yes, like any other car.

Does a vehicle require registering to ensure it meets with size limits. Yes/No
No

Does a vehicle require perodic inspection to ensure it's fit for purpose and not modified in a way contarary to its registration to carry passengers. Yes/No
Initial thoughts would be no. But I do understand Uber do require these kind of checks.

Does a vehicle require mandatory signage to identify it to people easily Yes/No
No.

Does a driver require a background check. Yes/No
Yes.

If a background check is required should it include driving offences. Yes/No
Yes

Should a driver be limited to areas specific to where he knows or lives and works Yes/No
No

Should a driver be able to work anywhere because of SatNav Yes/No
Yes

Should a driver undergo peridocical medicals/ health checks. Yes/No
No.

Should a driver be required to register with revenue that they have a 2nd source of income Yes/No
Yes.

Should a driver be required to be tax compliant at all times. Yes/No
Like every other person, people should be required to be tax compliant at all times.

Should a driver have to notify a regulatory body of the vehicle they are driving Yes/No
Not the vehicle. I wouldn't say so unless there's an important reason I'm not aware of. The driver should require a licence at minimal cost and effort they can apply for online.

11-07-2019 10:51pm

If ye lads put as much effort into lobbying the regulator as ye do ranting about the perceived injustices, conspiracy theories and general wacko-jacko stuff, then who knows what ye might achieve for other transport companies like Uber, Lyft etc

As it stands rehashing the same wild fantasies over and over again here will do little. The regs are what they are and unlikely to be changed to allow a drop in the minimum standards to facilitate some multinational transport companies like Uber, Lyft etc

But do carry on

makeorbrake · 11-07-2019 11:46pm

Deleted User wrote: »

If ye lads put as much effort into lobbying the regulator as ye do ranting about the perceived injustices, conspiracy theories and general wacko-jacko stuff, then who knows what ye might achieve for other transport companies like Uber, Lyft etc

As it stands rehashing the same wild fantasies over and over again here will do little. The regs are what they are and unlikely to be changed to allow to facilitate a drop in the minimum standards to facilitate some multinational transport companies like Uber, Lyft etc

But do carry on

You'll need to replace a couple of panes of glass in that glasshouse you ping that nonsense from.

12-07-2019 3:17am

makeorbrake wrote: »

You'll need to replace a couple of panes of glass in that glasshouse you ping that nonsense from.

Keep calm and carry on

Spook_ie · 12-07-2019 2:12pm

usernamegoes wrote: »

By your logic I suppose taxing and hackneys are the same thing and don't require separate regulation. It's a view, not mine, but it's a view nonetheless.

Require drivers to have adequate insurance like other countries have. Require all dispatch operators to full cover the trips taken if the driver's insurance fails for whatever reason as Uber do now. Who cover the costs if my taxis insurance isnt paid or otherwise invalidated?

MyTaxi doesn't run any cars, like Uber it connects drivers to users, the licensing of the drivers requires them to have full hire and reward insurance. Some companies such as CityCabs do have some cars that they rent out and each one must be insured along the same lines.

Does a driver require commercial or hire and reward insurance. Yes/No
Yes. As in other countries a market will develop. Extra protection by having the dispatch operator provide supplemental and backup insurance as Uber do. Do 8202020?

Same as the answer above, 8202020 are owned by Ebbs who also owns CityCabs. Therefore there is no requirement for supplemental insurance.

Does a vehicle require a current NCT at all times. Yes/No
Yes, like any other car.

All SPSVs in Ireland require an NCT yearly from their first birthday, only exception is less than 3 months old and less than 3000Km should Uber vehicles require the same? If not why not?

Does a vehicle require registering to ensure it meets with size limits. Yes/No
No

Is there any reason why Uber vehicles shouldn't be required to take a folded standard wheelchair, basic requirement for SPSVs.

Does a vehicle require perodic inspection to ensure it's fit for purpose and not modified in a way contarary to its registration to carry passengers. Yes/No
Initial thoughts would be no. But I do understand Uber do require these kind of checks.

SPSVs are required to undergo these checks annually and during random roadside checks, is a company (primarily concerned with profit ) a suitable office for the governance of this or should it be, like the NCT an external agency?

Does a vehicle require mandatory signage to identify it to people easily Yes/No
No.

As is the case with Hackneys and Limousines in Ireland, in fact any external signage is an offence, however, small owner advertising max 10,000 sq. mm is permitted, i would assume that an Uber/Lyft sticker would be acceptable by the NTA.

Does a driver require a background check. Yes/No
Yes.

As does any driver licensed by NTA

If a background check is required should it include driving offences. Yes/No
Yes

Again standard requirement, nowI would assume that having passed these requirements then a certificate or license if you will should be provided, does a cost of €1 a week seem excessive? That is the cost as it stands for an SPSV license

Should a driver be limited to areas specific to where he knows or lives and works Yes/No
No

I tend to agree with that, however, how do you ensure that all your Uber/Lyft drivers don't attend lucrative festivals etc to the detriment of traffic guidance etc.

Should a driver be able to work anywhere because of SatNav Yes/No
Yes

As above I don't see any reason why not, except for the obvious drawback of thousands of vehicles attending Oxygen, Galway races etc. to make a quick buck.

Should a driver undergo peridocical medicals/ health checks. Yes/No
No.

Interesting, not a requirement at the moment, unless a GP advises you to cease driving, however, I myself believe that a mandatory eyesight test should be required at least every 3-5 years

Should a driver be required to register with revenue that they have a 2nd source of income Yes/No
Yes.

Well that should put some people off at least, the fact of having to fill out a form 11 each year with a P+L account, though if Uber/lyft wanted to they could easily provide a P60 type document giving earnings for a year.

Should a driver be required to be tax compliant at all times. Yes/No
Like every other person, people should be required to be tax compliant at all times.

So as with SPSV licensing I assume you'd have no problem with their license being suspended, however that does require Uber/Lyft to liaise with revenue in stopping a driver receiving requests. Might be doable but a lot would depend on Uber/Lyft doing their bit.

Should a driver have to notify a regulatory body of the vehicle they are driving Yes/No
Not the vehicle. I wouldn't say so unless there's an important reason I'm not aware of.

unless you know the vehicle has been passed for its NCT, Insurance etc. how would you prevent a person whose own car had broken down borrowing a mates uninsured, untested vehicle? If the vehicle has been licensed and insurance checked etc. simple matter of extending the driver check app to cover it.

The driver should require a licence at minimal cost and effort they can apply for online.

I actually agree, there is no real need for a knowledge test with a satNav system, however, there are an awful lot of people on the roads using SatNavs that screw up by not paying attention to the real world around them, in fact the RSA is now considering using a SatNav as part of the driving test. Perhaps all people using a SatNav rather than their own knowledge should be subject to this section of a driving license test. Especially those that are driving people around for payment.

usernamegoes · 12-07-2019 6:42pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

MyTaxi doesn't run any cars, like Uber it connects drivers to users, the licensing of the drivers requires them to have full hire and reward insurance. Some companies such as CityCabs do have some cars that they rent out and each one must be insured along the same lines.

I suppose Uber is over-insured vis-a-vis taxis. I guess that's another innovation they have brought to the market.

Same as the answer above, 8202020 are owned by Ebbs who also owns CityCabs. Therefore there is no requirement for supplemental insurance.

Yeah, I suppose Uber just does things better in terms of insurance and safety. Much lower risk of not being covered by insurance when using Uber over taxis.

All SPSVs in Ireland require an NCT yearly from their first birthday, only exception is less than 3 months old and less than 3000Km should Uber vehicles require the same? If not why not?

No. Makes no sense. Is there evidence that a brand new car is less safe when someone else is driving me around than if I drive myself?

Is there any reason why Uber vehicles shouldn't be required to take a folded standard wheelchair, basic requirement for SPSVs.

Yeah, not all cars need to take a wheelchair. Relative to the number of wheelchair users requiring 100 per cent to fit wheelchairs and not all wheelchairs for that matter seems OTT never mind the WAV issue as already discussed.

SPSVs are required to undergo these checks annually and during random roadside checks, is a company (primarily concerned with profit ) a suitable office for the governance of this or should it be, like the NCT an external agency?

Uber have a much greater incentive to ensure their are no incidents with the vehicles that use their platform. Bad press = bad business.

As is the case with Hackneys and Limousines in Ireland, in fact any external signage is an offence, however, small owner advertising max 10,000 sq. mm is permitted, i would assume that an Uber/Lyft sticker would be acceptable by the NTA.

I don't think there should be a requirement to have signage or a prohibition on having signage.

As does any driver licensed by NTA

Great.

Again standard requirement, nowI would assume that having passed these requirements then a certificate or license if you will should be provided, does a cost of €1 a week seem excessive? That is the cost as it stands for an SPSV license

What's the fee for?

I tend to agree with that, however, how do you ensure that all your Uber/Lyft drivers don't attend lucrative festivals etc to the detriment of traffic guidance etc.

I let the Garda look after traffic management.

As above I don't see any reason why not, except for the obvious drawback of thousands of vehicles attending Oxygen, Galway races etc. to make a quick buck.

Same answer

Interesting, not a requirement at the moment, unless a GP advises you to cease driving, however, I myself believe that a mandatory eyesight test should be required at least every 3-5 years

Anyone told to cease driving should do so including driving for reward.

Well that should put some people off at least, the fact of having to fill out a form 11 each year with a P+L account, though if Uber/lyft wanted to they could easily provide a P60 type document giving earnings for a year.

I am no expert on tax rules, but I assume antyone getting extra income needs to register with the revenue. It should be the same.

So as with SPSV licensing I assume you'd have no problem with their license being suspended, however that does require Uber/Lyft to liaise with revenue in stopping a driver receiving requests. Might be doable but a lot would depend on Uber/Lyft doing their bit.

Not sure. AirBnB were forced to share tax information.

unless you know the vehicle has been passed for its NCT, Insurance etc. how would you prevent a person whose own car had broken down borrowing a mates uninsured, untested vehicle? If the vehicle has been licensed and insurance checked etc. simple matter of extending the driver check app to cover it.

Well Uber would insure the trip if they were allowed to operate. How do you stop taxis doing this?

I actually agree, there is no real need for a knowledge test with a satNav system, however, there are an awful lot of people on the roads using SatNavs that screw up by not paying attention to the real world around them, in fact the RSA is now considering using a SatNav as part of the driving test. Perhaps all people using a SatNav rather than their own knowledge should be subject to this section of a driving license test. Especially those that are driving people around for payment.

The UK driving test requires you to follow a sat nav.

n97 mini · 12-07-2019 7:13pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

unless you know the vehicle has been passed for its NCT, Insurance etc. how would you prevent a person whose own car had broken down borrowing a mates uninsured, untested vehicle?

The app shows the car make, model, colour, reg plate and a photo of the driver. If they don't match when the lift arrives, don't take it and report via the app.

Spook_ie · 12-07-2019 9:41pm

usernamegoes wrote: »

I suppose Uber is over-insured vis-a-vis taxis. I guess that's another innovation they have brought to the market.

Yeah, I suppose Uber just does things better in terms of insurance and safety. Much lower risk of not being covered by insurance when using Uber over taxis.

You can't over insure for an item, that would be fraud, the insurance companies share the liability. Not sure how Ubers bare minimum of $1,000,000 would fare when faced with potential payouts of €2,600,000

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/electrician-who-suffered-brain-injury-settles-accident-case-for-2-6m-38299981.html

No. Makes no sense. Is there evidence that a brand new car is less safe when someone else is driving me around than if I drive myself?

We're going to have to disagree there then, how many faulty cars do you see on the road already. Even the 1 year rule for SPSVs doesn't take all the faulty cars off the road, instead people tend to wait for the NCT to fail them. I would like much stricter enforcement on all cars especially lighting faults and that includes the 191 reg from last night

Yeah, not all cars need to take a wheelchair. Relative to the number of wheelchair users requiring 100 per cent to fit wheelchairs and not all wheelchairs for that matter seems OTT never mind the WAV issue as already discussed.

Again we're going to disagree then, because Ireland has signed up to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and as such if a car is taking paying passengers then it should be fit for the person with disabilities as well, not all disabilities require people to travel in wheelchairs but may need wheelchairs when going around shops etc.

Uber have a much greater incentive to ensure their are no incidents with the vehicles that use their platform. Bad press = bad business.

And why did Uber lose their license in London, because they were playing fast and loose with allegations of sexual assault etc. Far better for an unconnected office like the NTA rather than profit driven companies.

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/uber-allowed-sex-attack-driver-to-strike-again-by-not-reporting-incident-36027625.html

I don't think there should be a requirement to have signage or a prohibition on having signage.

Again that would depend on where about on the spectrum of SPSVs you placed Uber, nearer to taxi service the more requirement for signage, nearer to limousine then the less signage.

Great.

Well that's settled then

What's the fee for?

To provide the shiny ID that provides the passenger with another sign of confidence that the driver has passed background checks etc. Or do you think the app on a phone is all that's needed, given Ubers reliance on self checking I wouldn't imagine the NTA or Gardai letting that one go.

I let the Garda look after traffic management.

Same answer

Yeah I sometime wish I could drive up to the Galway festivals and cop a few fares too, but hey I follow the regulations, if they change them maybe I'll get to Galway and Cork yet

Anyone told to cease driving should do so including driving for reward.

Yet you don't advocate for medical testing but self certification, again we'll have to disagree, as I said there should be a minimum of an eye test every 2-5 years.

I am no expert on tax rules, but I assume anyone getting extra income needs to register with the revenue. It should be the same.

Great we agree on avoiding tax evasion by ride share drivers then and requiring them to have tax clearance

Not sure. AirBnB were forced to share tax information.

Well someone has to ensure that the taxman knows that someone has a second income, normally it would be the licensing authority, in the case of Uber etc. unless it's legislated for them to hand over the information ( bear in mind they are a US company and pay drivers through a shell company )that may not be achievable. Another good reason for registrations of vehicles and drivers to remain "in country" with the NTA

Well Uber would insure the trip if they were allowed to operate. How do you stop taxis doing this?

Don't think Uber insurance would cover any kind of fraudulent use of a vehicle, SPSV's in Ireland are required to have Hire and Reward insurance and if the insurance is voided or cancelled the insurer is obligated to inform the NTA who then inform the Gardai and more than likely activate a sting to catch the driver working without insurance. Though a good solicitor might well save the day

http://www.mayonews.ie/news/32942-solicitor-claims-nta-inciting-taxi-operators-to-commit-crimes

The UK driving test requires you to follow a sat nav.

Yeah we should bring one in here and I also think that all SPSV drivers should probably do it retrospectively

Spook_ie · 12-07-2019 9:45pm

n97 mini wrote: »

The app shows the car make, model, colour, reg plate and a photo of the driver. If they don't match when the lift arrives, don't take it and report via the app.

Yeah that works fine...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p0jbS1Bn2s

makeorbrake · 12-07-2019 10:20pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yeah that works fine...

Anyone can find a few outlier cases. There have been plenty of assaults carried out by actual taxi drivers. Other than that, how far do you want to take society?

People have to have personal responsibility and in this instance that includes checking the license plate on the car. No doubt you'll come back and say that's not how it works in the real world, people are drunk, etc. Life is full of choices and everyone has a choice to be personally responsible.

Spook_ie · 12-07-2019 10:24pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

Anyone can find a few outlier cases. There have been plenty of assaults carried out by actual taxi drivers. Other than that, how far do you want to take society?

People have to have personal responsibility and in this instance that includes checking the license plate on the car. No doubt you'll come back and say that's not how it works in the real world, people are drunk, etc. Life is full of choices and everyone has a choice to be personally responsible.

You had your chance to join in with some suggestions, forgive me if I now put you on ignore.

makeorbrake · 12-07-2019 10:30pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

You had your chance to join in with some suggestions, forgive me if I now put you on ignore.

This is an open public discussion. If you'd like to have a private one with others, I guess the PM feature will come in handy. Perhaps they hire out echo chambers somewhere...

usernamegoes · 12-07-2019 10:59pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

You can't over insure for an item, that would be fraud, the insurance companies share the liability. Not sure how Ubers bare minimum of $1,000,000 would fare when faced with potential payouts of €2,600,000

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.

n97 mini · 13-07-2019 11:05am

makeorbrake wrote: »

Anyone can find a few outlier cases. There have been plenty of assaults carried out by actual taxi drivers. Other than that, how far do you want to take society?

They're not outliers though, as no Uber drivers were involved in assaults.

AndrewJRenko · 13-07-2019 6:48pm

n97 mini wrote: »

They're not outliers though, as no Uber drivers were involved in assaults.

Really?

https://www.atchisontransport.com/blog/reported-list-of-incidents-involving-uber-and-lyft/

n97 mini · 13-07-2019 8:43pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Really?

https://www.atchisontransport.com/blog/reported-list-of-incidents-involving-uber-and-lyft/

In the link given above. People were masquerading as official drivers.

It'd be interesting if some ride-sharing company kept a similar blog about taxis though.

For started criminals are allowed drive taxis, if their tax affairs are up to date.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2001/0605/15749-monk/

end of the road · 13-07-2019 9:01pm

n97 mini wrote: »

In the link given above. People were masquerading as official drivers.

which is why we have the regulations we do in ireland. to try and prevent people pretending to be a psv operator. we don't simply leave it to the whims of a private company or person.
anyway people pretending to be uber drivers aren't the only things in that link. the link shows ultimately that your original claim is bogus.

AndrewJRenko · 13-07-2019 9:13pm

n97 mini wrote: »

In the link given above. People were masquerading as official drivers.

Not true.

Uber driver; https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1467497/unconscious-uber-driver-woman-dragged-down-street-after-driver-demanded-cash-for-her-phone/

Uber driver; https://www.projectq.us/atlanta/uber_driver_threatens_gay_atlanta_men_with_gun?gid=17890

Uber driver: https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/woman-says-angry-uber-driver-ran-her-over/377645290

Do I need to keep going?

n97 mini · 13-07-2019 9:19pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Not true.

Uber driver; https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1467497/unconscious-uber-driver-woman-dragged-down-street-after-driver-demanded-cash-for-her-phone/

Uber driver; https://www.projectq.us/atlanta/uber_driver_threatens_gay_atlanta_men_with_gun?gid=17890

Uber driver: https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlanta/woman-says-angry-uber-driver-ran-her-over/377645290

Do I need to keep going?

No your link to a taxi company's blog was fine. Thwe one I was responding to was with the YouTube video, and you responded to my reply to that.

n97 mini · 13-07-2019 9:26pm

end of the road wrote: »

which is why we have the regulations we do in ireland. to try and prevent people pretending to be a psv operator. we don't simply leave it to the whims of a private company or person.
anyway people pretending to be uber drivers aren't the only things in that link. the link shows ultimately that your original claim is bogus.

Try being the active word. Although we don't try very hard. Convicted criminals can drive taxis, we seemingly have no end of people driving on other people's licences, and plenty of reported cases of people sticking a taxi sign on their roof and picking up people on the street (In Belfast you can't hail a taxi on the street, for that very reason.) All those are weaknesses in the current system.

In response to your second paragraph, you didn't watch the video.

AndrewJRenko · 13-07-2019 10:01pm

n97 mini wrote: »

No your link to a taxi company's blog was fine. Thwe one I was responding to was with the YouTube video, and you responded to my reply to that.

Gotcha. So we definitely do have cases of assaults by Uber and Lyft drivers on record, despite their supposedly excellent vetting system and apparently foolproof rating system.

It's interesting to hear from you that there is a problem with people impersonating Uber drivers too. I thought that couldn't happen, given the amazingly innovative app that gives all the details to the customer?

n97 mini wrote: »

we seemingly have no end of people driving on other people's licences, and plenty of reported cases of people sticking a taxi sign on their roof and picking up people on the street

Really? How/when/where is this happening? Have we any reliable reports? There are very occasional issues picked up by the regulator when they do their enforcement operations, but these are few and far between. If you're aware of 'no end of people driving on other people's licences' you should really be reporting this to the authorities urgenty.

n97 mini · 13-07-2019 10:30pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Gotcha. So we definitely do have cases of assaults by Uber and Lyft drivers on record, despite their supposedly excellent vetting system and apparently foolproof rating system.

No system is perfect, for obvious reasons. That's human nature. There will always be chancers. Overall tho, Uber vetting is more robust than the taxi regulator's. No criminal records for example.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's interesting to hear from you that there is a problem with people impersonating Uber drivers too. I thought that couldn't happen, given the amazingly innovative app that gives all the details to the customer?

In IT we have what's called a PEBKAC error. Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair. If people don't use the information given to them correctly.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Really? How/when/where is this happening? Have we any reliable reports? There are very occasional issues picked up by the regulator when they do their enforcement operations, but these are few and far between. If you're aware of 'no end of people driving on other people's licences' you should really be reporting this to the authorities urgenty.

I'm only going on media reports as I don't use taxis anymore, too many bad experiences! Not much for me to report I'm afraid! Google bogus taxi drivers, plenty of results.

Spook_ie · 13-07-2019 10:39pm

n97 mini wrote: »

Try being the active word. Although we don't try very hard. Convicted criminals can drive taxis, we seemingly have no end of people driving on other people's licences, and plenty of reported cases of people sticking a taxi sign on their roof and picking up people on the street (In Belfast you can't hail a taxi on the street, for that very reason.) All those are weaknesses in the current system.

In response to your second paragraph, you didn't watch the video.

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

Uber

Comments