Uber

makeorbrake · 16-06-2019 2:21pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is this a thing? Do people really describe themselves as 'a neutral' these days in discussions like this?

I'd imagine he means he's...
A. Not a taxi driver
and
B. Doesnt approach the discussion with this extreme ideology that you do.

He's just a consumer.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yeah, that would be fairly radical, given that consumers generally can't check the safety of the brakes or the shock absorbers before they start their journey.

Being deliberately obtuse once again, I see. You were the one that said people were ignorant. Consumers are quite capable of determining what represents a value proposition. As regards your shock absorbers, all cars are tested in Ireland.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I've absolutely no idea what you're saying here.

Others do but don't you bother your pretty little head about it.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Does 'well and truly established' just mean that you've said it a few times? I'm not sure that would meet most people's definition of 'established'.

Obtuse once again - given that we've been over this a million times. It means that given the other party to that specific discussion said that it was irrelevant to the discussion, there's no need to discuss it further as it doesn't bring the discussion on any further.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yeah, I know a bit about app development all right. And you're right - there is no comparison between Avonmore's app and Uber's app. You seem to have forgotten the context in which I mentioned Avonmore and others. I raised these examples to show how ridiculous your claim that 'they are a technology company because they operate an app' was. I never suggested that there was a comparison with Avonmore and others - the exact opposite. So the question still remains as to whether you stand over your claim that they are a technology company because they operate an app?

Obtuse once again.
What I said was that Uber is a technology company - and that their APP is central to their offering.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You can post as many articles as you like - that doesn't change the facts. The Uber business model isn't innovative.

Facts, huh? The irony!
Right, so experts who concern themselves with innovation say that Uber has innovated and you disagree on the basis of your Uncle Jim's experience with his Cortina in the 70's?

I guess we all know who is the most credible there then.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The Uber app isn't innovative. [Hailo/MyTaxi have been doing this for years, as long as Uber] The Uber payment by credit card isn't innovative. [Hailo/MyTaxi have been doing this for years, as long as Uber]. Where exactly is the innovation, apart from trying (and in Ireland, failing) by bypass regulation?

I guess you have a comprehension difficulty in determining how innovation works. It happens when one or more companies alters industry practice or consumer behaviour. A few years ago, nobody used an APP to access transportation. Now the whole planet does. That, my friend, is innovation.

Facilitating credit card as opposed to cash - the very same. And the bypassing regulation nonsense - has been covered umpteen times. Ride sharing is not taxi-ing. When ride sharing has its own regulation, i'm sure ride sharing facilitators will have no problem in abiding by it (provided its not designed to appease the taxi industry).

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's a bit difficult to take allegations of 'playing the man' seriously from someone who comes out with stuff like 'bitter little cretin'.

Well, I guess that's a personal thing you'll have to come to terms with. I stand behind the use of the phrase as a reaction to your bad behaviour (which very much came first).

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And why exactly would I be bothered to prove the relevance of your 'four companies' claim? It's your claim - you made it. If it was not relevant, why did you say it in the first place? If it was something that you plucked out of the air, why didn't you withdraw it? It's not a personal attack - it's attacking the claim that you made and have been unable to support.

Maybe - just maybe - it's because it isn't relevant to this discussion - that the other party to that specific discussion STATED it wasn't relevant....despite your protestations.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is this the closest you get to saying 'I made a mistake, sorry about that'? It's really not that hard to say those words. It doesn't weaken your position - quite the opposite, it actually strengthens your position. Congrats on getting close at least to a mature approach.

No this is where I can further justify use of the 'bitter little cretin' remark - because this statement feeds into backing up that assertion. Mature approach? You think you have a mature approach? Laughable!

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Which was in response to Nermal's misdirected claim of 'vested interest' - a move you've tried yourself once or twice when you've run out of anything factual to say on the topic.

'Vested interests' is non-political / non-ideological. You started attacking people's values and ideologies. Remember, this recent particular point of debate has sprung from you claiming I attacked you personally. And here we are - and we find that YOU are at the root of that - not me.

As regards 'vested interests', yes I did refer to same and stand behind it.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's funny yet again how you have to twist and grossly exaggerate what I've said to find something that you can argue with. Is that what they call strawmanning?
I've made it explicitly clear that there absolutely IS value in asking consumers what they want or need, provided that it's done in a sensible, balanced way. I've pointed out how developments in taxi regulation in recent years have been done despite huge opposition from the taxi community, including the WAV requirement to help ensure that people with disabilities have decent access to taxi services.
So yes, most people are ignorant on the technicalities of any sector - though (for the third time) there is indeed value in asking consumers what they want or need in a balanced approach. Is that nuance a bit too subtle for you?

That's ok - we got this from before. "People are ignorant" and "you know what you know". We get it.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Interesting - so you're certain I couldn't just call an Uber/InDriver/Beat driver to take me in from the airport? I thought they were really safe and comfortable services, but now you're saying that I couldn't take a simple journey safely as a new arrival in the country? You're really not doing a great job bigging up Uber etc as safe services there.

Well, thats not going to be an option for you given that you're ideologically opposed to using Uber - or any other ride sharing app. So that would leave you taking a taxi in - and taxi men here have been complicit in robbing people.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

And I'm fairly sure that I haven't made any comment about how things work wherever you are. I don't think you've even mentioned where exactly you are, so how could I know or comment about it. I've stuck to commenting on the situation in Ireland.

Yes, you did. You started making comparisons with the great system in Ireland not even having an earthly clue what you were comparing it to.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is this the 'fake news' approach of where you just shout 'wrong' loudly and hope and pray that no-one looks at the actual evidence. If you do search for 'uber risk', here's the top 10 results;

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So they're the risks - mostly for drivers participating, or risks to customers, or risks to their business - not the risks for their competitors as you claim.
And no, I'm not saying that things never go wrong with Irish taxis - but they are fairly few and far between - as the public review of taxi complaints shows.

So sexual deviants and mobsters have (and still do) hold taxi licenses. Thanks for clearing that up - very helpful.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There's a bit more to Garda vetting that 'a background check', but regardless, if there would be no difference in standards, why do you keep jumping up and down about requiring new regulations for ride-sharing? You want lower standards, right?

What sort of moronic claim is this? Allow people who want to driver via a ride sharing platform to be vetted/background checked in the same way as taxi drivers. That's as complex as that gets.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I don't know how many different ways I can explain it to you, but I didn't compare doctors to taxi drivers. I compared regulation of doctors to regulation of taxi drivers. Again, perhaps that nuance is just too subtle for you. There were no words in my post that compared doctors to taxi drivers. Any such comparison exists only inside your head.

You can try and be as disingenuous about it all you want. You used the doctor analogy which equates to the same thing. Try and weasel out of it all you want.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What you've dismantled (in the unlikely scenario of you being left in charge of taxi regulation) is a decade or so of progress in improving access to taxi services for people with disabilities. Did you try speaking to many people with disabilities in Ireland before you went dismantling? Or are those consumers not good enough to be asked for their opinion?

And what you're doing here is disgusting - hiding behind the disabled. That issue can be tackled in any number of ways - none of which has to affect ride sharing services to the point where it makes ride sharing unworkable. And by the very fact that ride sharing is impossible in Ireland, it means there are fewer options for consumers - which will have a knock on effect in terms of the WAV's available to those with disabilities anyway.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You need me to explain how having vetted drivers and safe cars helps consumers? I'm fairly confident that 'a neutral' can work that out for themselves thanks.

And how is a neutral going to figure anything out when you say that "people are ignorant"....even though you yourself "know what you know."

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But just to be clear, the 'betterment of society and consumers' doesn't include people with disabilities having a decent chance of getting a taxi to get to their job interview or to get home from the pub?

Once more - absolutely disgusting that you would hide behind the disabled in all of this.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Private cars are tested less frequently and less stringently than taxis, given the extra demands on the vehicles.

There's very little in the difference but if you want ride sharers to put their cars through a commercial test, no problem.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Beyond the one that gives people with disabilities a half-decent chance of getting to their job interview or getting home from their pub.

Again, the disgusting behaviour of hiding behind the disabled in order to further your agenda.

Spook_ie · 16-06-2019 2:46pm

usernamegoes wrote: »

Something like, those who own cars using them to offer lifts to others for a fee.

You mean unregulated taxiing then, not ride sharing.

Yeah, that was my point. The CJEU decision isn't really relevant to this discussion. We aren't arguing that there shouldn't be fit-for-purpose regulations on people who drive in ride-sharing taxi situations. And Ireland current;y regulates Uber as a dispatch operator which Uber would still need to comply with if they were allowed operatetaxis here.

Uber can and does operate here, again you are asking for unregulated taxis.

Uber lobbied to be allowed use hackneys, if the artificial barriers to entry were removed e.g. remove the WAV requirement and make the cost of applying cover the admin costs.

Successive governments since the 90's have put disability awareness upfront as a policy, it is now actually showing fruits since the requirement for taxis and hackneys to be Wheelchair compliant. As I said in an earlier post.

Spook_ie wrote: »

The latest I found so far from the Dail
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2018-04-18/212/

The regulation of the small public service vehicle (SPSV) industry is a matter for the National Transport Authority (NTA) under the provisions of the Taxi Regulation Act 2013.

In order to support an increase in the number of wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs) in Ireland's SPSV fleet, licences for new taxis or hackneys will only be granted in respect of WAVs. This requirement was introduced in 2010.

To supplement this measure, the NTA administers a WAV Grant Scheme, which offers grants on a sliding scale from €2,500 to €7,500. The set amounts awarded by grants through this scheme aim to align with the cost difference in purchasing a WAV or converting a vehicle to fulfill the WAV requirements. This scheme is open to all SPSV drivers, with grants offered on a first-come-first-served basis.

The share of WAVs in our SPSV fleet is currently 8%. We are on trajectory towards meeting our goal of a 10% share by 2020. I remain committed to increasing the number of WAVs within our SPSV fleet and supporting the NTA in the administration of the WAV Grant Scheme.

In relation to your question on the number of accessible taxis available in Ireland, I have referred your question to the NTA for direct reply to you. Please advise my private office if you do not receive a response within 10 working days.

Perhaps all the statements from those who think they are in the know should direct their criticism at the government, now I don't know when they get to their 10% figure if they'll start to release saloon plates or not, but if they do then I would expect them to be restricted in number to ensure that the ratio of WATs doesn't fall below 8 or 9% before they only allow WATs again

AndrewJRenko · 16-06-2019 3:07pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

So let me get this straight. You reckon I 'lied' about something that has no bearing on the discussion? Do you want to stop up and catch yerself on for a minute, per-chance? Who/what in the discussion would I be influencing if it's - as you explicitly stated - of no bearing?

It's pathetic....that you can't let your points on the actual topic stand for themselves - you have to go for character assassination (despite the fact that all the while, you're completely wrong).

So he's completely wrong, though you're refusing to identify the four companies that would substantiate your claim? I know who I believe.

makeorbrake · 16-06-2019 3:11pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So he's completely wrong, though you're refusing to identify the four companies that would substantiate your claim? I know who I believe.

So an element of discussion was identified as not bringing the discussion any further on and not being on topic. That was deemed to be the case by both parties to the discussion.

And you demand to dredge through it on that irrational basis?

Yes, I have no doubt that people will be able to form their own opinion on that - no doubt. As for your opinion, sorry but from what I've learned about you and your approach to this topic, it doesn't interest me what you think.

usernamegoes · 16-06-2019 3:12pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

You mean unregulated taxiing then, not ride sharing.

Yeah, I'm not getting into this with you. You can call it what you like. I'll call it what everyone else in the world calls it.

I don't think I said unregulated in fact I said I do think there should be fit-for-purpose regulations. You and I disagree on what they should be. I understand you want to have unrealistic regulations to ensure that you don't have to compete with a service consumers prefer. I get that.

Uber can and does operate here, again you are asking for unregulated taxis.

Exactly. This was my point. The CJEU decision is not relevant. Call it what you like (see above)

Successive governments since the 90's have put disability awareness upfront as a policy, it is now actually showing fruits since the requirement for taxis and hackneys to be Wheelchair compliant. As I said in an earlier post.

Again require all cars to be WAVs by next year if you're so concerned. Fact is you're not. You are pretending that's what you want in order to impose artifical barriers to entry to protect yourself. You couldn't give a fiddlers about wheelchair users because if you did you would get a WAV and allow more taxis and hackneys to operate thereby ensuring the WAVs that do exist are free for wheelchair users who need them.

Spook_ie · 16-06-2019 3:13pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

I'd imagine he means he's...
A. Not a taxi driver
and
B. Doesnt approach the discussion with this extreme ideology that you do.

He's just a consumer.

Being deliberately obtuse once again, I see. You were the one that said people were ignorant. Consumers are quite capable of determining what represents a value proposition. As regards your shock absorbers, all cars are tested in Ireland.

Others do but don't you bother your pretty little head about it.

Obtuse once again - given that we've been over this a million times. It means that given the other party to that specific discussion said that it was irrelevant to the discussion, there's no need to discuss it further as it doesn't bring the discussion on any further.

Out n out lie

Obtuse once again.
What I said was that Uber is a technology company - and that their APP is central to their offering.

Facts, huh? The irony!
Right, so experts who concern themselves with innovation say that Uber has innovated and you disagree on the basis of your Uncle Jim's experience with his Cortina in the 70's? I guess we all know who is the most credible there then.

I guess you have a comprehension difficulty in determining how innovation works. It happens when one or more companies alters industry practice or consumer behaviour. A few years ago, nobody used an APP to access transportation. Now the whole planet does. That, my friend, is innovation.

Facilitating credit card as opposed to cash - the very same. And the bypassing regulation nonsense - has been covered umpteen times. Ride sharing is not taxi-ing. When ride sharing has its own regulation, i'm sure ride sharing facilitators will have no problem in abiding by it (provided its not designed to appease the taxi industry).

Well, I guess that's a personal thing you'll have to come to terms with. I stand behind the use of the phrase as a reaction to your bad behaviour (which very much came first).

Maybe - just maybe - it's because it isn't relevant to this discussion - that the other party to that specific discussion STATED it wasn't relevant....despite your protestations.

Still an outright barefaced lie,

No this is where I can further justify use of the 'bitter little cretin' remark - because this statement feeds into backing up that assertion. Mature approach? You think you have a mature approach? Laughable!

'Vested interests' is non-political / non-ideological. You started attacking people's values and ideologies. Remember, this recent particular point of debate has sprung from you claiming I attacked you personally. And here we are - and we find that YOU are at the root of that - not me.

As regards 'vested interests', yes I did refer to same and stand behind it.

That's ok - we got this from before. "People are ignorant" and "you know what you know". We get it.

Well, thats not going to be an option for you given that you're ideologically opposed to using Uber - or any other ride sharing app. So that would leave you taking a taxi in - and taxi men here have been complicit in robbing people.

Yes, you did. You started making comparisons with the great system in Ireland not even having an earthly clue what you were comparing it to.

So sexual deviants and mobsters have (and still do) hold taxi licenses. Thanks for clearing that up - very helpful.

What sort of moronic claim is this? Allow people who want to driver via a ride sharing platform to be vetted/background checked in the same way as taxi drivers. That's as complex as that gets.

You can try and be as disingenuous about it all you want. You used the doctor analogy which equates to the same thing. Try and weasel out of it all you want.

And what you're doing here is disgusting - hiding behind the disabled. That issue can be tackled in any number of ways - none of which has to affect ride sharing services to the point where it makes ride sharing unworkable. And by the very fact that ride sharing is impossible in Ireland, it means there are fewer options for consumers - which will have a knock on effect in terms of the WAV's available to those with disabilities anyway.

And how is a neutral going to figure anything out when you say that "people are ignorant"....even though you yourself "know what you know."

Once more - absolutely disgusting that you would hide behind the disabled in all of this.

There's very little in the difference but if you want ride sharers to put their cars through a commercial test, no problem.

Again, the disgusting behaviour of hiding behind the disabled in order to further your agenda.

makeorbrake · 16-06-2019 3:21pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Out n out lie
Still an outright barefaced lie,

Eh, no it's not.

Spook_ie · 16-06-2019 3:25pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

So an element of discussion was identified as not bringing the discussion any further on and not being on topic. That was deemed to be the case by both parties to the discussion.

And you demand to dredge through it on that irrational basis?

Yes, I have no doubt that people will be able to form their own opinion on that - no doubt. As for your opinion, sorry but from what I've learned about you and your approach to this topic, it doesn't interest me what you think.

Considering that the comment about facts and lies was directed at AJRenko, I wouldn't dream of agreeing something so blatant as that
FTR AJRs post and your reply to that post

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I didn't call you ignorant. I referred to your ignorance on this topic, which is obvious. And you didn't 'ask a question' - you waded in with definitive statements that showed your obvious ignorance of the matter and the recent history in Ireland.

People with disabilities don't want your sympathy. They want to be able to get to work, get to the airport, get home from the pub without undue hassle, just like everyone else.

Maybe you'd like to put your solutions to this issue that has challenged the taxi sector worldwide on the table so we can see how they might work?

I don't know, and I'm not going to do your research for you. I'm pointing out the difference in the current situation in Ireland and the UK, where there are large numbers of wheelchair accessible taxis in major cities.

'Go out and ask people what they believe'? Are you serious? Is the world of fake news where opinions trump facts? The facts are that Hailo and Uber launched at the same time, within a few months. Uber did not innovate with app ordering. They innovated with bypassing regulation, just like AirBNB and lots of other 'great' tech solutions.

Have you read the feedback from people with disabilities about how Uber's services are not accessible? Have you read about Uber's ludicrous legal strategy of claiming not to be a transport provider to avoid having to provide accessible services?
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Woman-in-Wheelchair-Denied-An-Uber-Ride-a-Bigger-Problem-Advocate-Says-486502331.html

https://www.thedailybeast.com/uber-disability-laws-dont-apply-to-us

http://fortune.com/2015/05/22/uber-lyft-disabled/

makeorbrake wrote: »

The arrogance. I asked a simple question which is the complete opposite of making definitive statements. Right back at ye : Yer taxi driving buddies are renowned at being experts at everything - I guess that's where you picked that up, right? :rolleyes:

GTF out of here with your faux concern and pathetic attempt to take the moral high-ground!

YOU DONT KNOW? - and you call me ignorant? GTF. Secondly, in case it escaped your attention, this is a discussion forum. I don't have any obligation to do 'research'. And once again, stop hiding behind the disability issue.

Says it all that you would invoke a trumpism here!

And you follow up by talking about FACTS when your facts are lies? Give me a break.

There were 4 technology companies that had apps launched before Hailo. Notwithstanding that, Hailo was just another application from just another technology company. The taxi industry didn't bring that about either.

Stop trying to hide behind the disability issue. Is every taxi in Ireland wheelchair accessible? Then your point is null and void.

Of course they have innovated by enabling technology to in turn enable ordinary people to use their existing vehicles for ride sharing purposes.

Wrong (and you can keep on with this and I'll keep correcting you...as you want). There is no regulation for ride sharing in ireland. Ride sharing is not taxi-ing. It's quite common for a new technological approach to emerge and no regulation existing to govern it to begin with.

And next you go after AirBNB? Dude, you have no credibility.

I've been to their offices here and talked to them about what they are. And what they are is a technology company. Uber is a platform - that enables individuals to go out and ride share. Of course they're not a traditional transport provider - with the exception of where they have their own autonomous cars on the road in the U.S.

Spook_ie · 16-06-2019 3:35pm

usernamegoes wrote: »

<snipped>

Again require all cars to be WAVs by next year if you're so concerned. Fact is you're not. You are pretending that's what you want in order to impose artifical barriers to entry to protect yourself. You couldn't give a fiddlers about wheelchair users because if you did you would get a WAV and allow more taxis and hackneys to operate thereby ensuring the WAVs that do exist are free for wheelchair users who need them.

The government has laid out it's plan via the NTA to get WATs up to 10%, they have been trying to improve this since the 90's, How in the name of Jeebus can you say it's a ploy by the taxi drivers to keep out Uber which didn't come into existence until 2009 and wasn't in Dublin until 2014, 4 years after the stopping of the issue of taxi plates.

usernamegoes · 16-06-2019 3:45pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

The government has laid out it's plan via the NTA to get WATs up to 10%, they have been trying to improve this since the 90's, How in the name of Jeebus can you say it's a ploy by the taxi drivers to keep out Uber which didn't come into existence until 2009 and wasn't in Dublin until 2014, 4 years after the stopping of the issue of taxi plates.

Regardless of what you say is Government policy. You'd lobby with us to change these rules because it's a bad policy. You're not pretending to agree with Government policy and that Government policy is correct because it protects you?

makeorbrake · 16-06-2019 3:57pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Considering that the comment about facts and lies was directed at AJRenko, I wouldn't dream of agreeing something so blatant as that
FTR AJRs post and your reply to that post

You expressed the view that you did at the time. Now you wish you had not as you think it represents an opportunity to have a go at me ....leaving aside the fact that such motivations are not in the genuine interests of the discussion overall.

Dravokivich · 16-06-2019 3:59pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

No earthly idea what yer on about with this.

GoCar is one particular model of car sharing of which there are a few. From the user end, there's little in the difference in that they access the car for a finite amount of time.

There are club-like structures where people share a car or number of cars. There are models where a marketplace is set up, facilitating car owners to share their own car out. And then there's the model that GoCar belong to...but it all comes under the auspices of 'Car Sharing'.

What do you not get? Ladyhawke, clearly put themselves in the position of customer. If they are a customer it's not a sharing experience. They are expecting to get to their end point, not somewhere nearby.

GoCar has nothing to do with car "sharing."

makeorbrake · 16-06-2019 4:06pm

Dravokivich wrote: »

What do you not get? Ladyhawke, clearly put themselves in the position of customer. If they are a customer it's not a sharing experience. They are expecting to get to their end point, not somewhere nearby.

Nonsense. It's still a consumer experience. Airbnb is a consumer experience. Car sharing is a consumer experience.

And yet, it's the sharing economy. Notice that second word - 'economy' - which is indicative of trade.

Dravokivich wrote: »

GoCar has nothing to do with car "sharing."

I respectfully disagree. At best, perhaps you are applying a different definition..but I disagree.

Spook_ie · 16-06-2019 4:07pm

usernamegoes wrote: »

Regardless of what you say is Government policy. You'd lobby with us to change these rules because it's a bad policy. You're not pretending to agree with Government policy and that Government policy is correct because it protects you?

I'm not lobbying for or against it, just trying to show how idiotic your suggestion that it's all to do with the taxi drivers is.

Spook_ie · 16-06-2019 4:09pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

You expressed the view that you did at the time. Now you wish you had not as you think it represents an opportunity to have a go at me ....leaving aside the fact that such motivations are not in the genuine interests of the discussion overall.

Once and for all, my comment about Uber and Hailo being chicken and egg was NOTHING to do with your claim of 4 companies, so STOP saying I agreed with you as it is a BLATANT BAREFACED LIE.

makeorbrake · 16-06-2019 4:16pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Once and for all, my comment about Uber and Hailo being chicken and egg was NOTHING to do with your claim of 4 companies, so STOP saying I agreed with you as it is a BLATANT BAREFACED LIE.

The only one telling bare faced porkies here is YOU.

makeorbrake · 16-06-2019 4:19pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

I'm not lobbying for or against it, just trying to show how idiotic your suggestion that it's all to do with the taxi drivers is.

So now you're an IDIOT 'usernamegoes', I guess this feeds into the same type of thinking as AndrewJRenko i.e. "people are ignorant" but he "knows what he knows"

There's some greater minds on this thread and then there's the rest of us unwashed heathens it seems....

AndrewJRenko · 16-06-2019 5:18pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

So now you're an IDIOT 'usernamegoes', I guess this feeds into the same type of thinking as AndrewJRenko i.e. "people are ignorant" but he "knows what he knows"

There's some greater minds on this thread and then there's the rest of us unwashed heathens it seems....

Does this mean that you subscribe to the belief that everyone has equal expert knowledge of every topic? It just seems a little bit 'communist' for you. Is it possible in your world that some people know more than others about any given topic?

makeorbrake wrote: »

I'd imagine he means he's...
A. Not a taxi driver
and
B. Doesnt approach the discussion with this extreme ideology that you do.

He's just a consumer.

Yeah, I get the point about being neutral - my question was more about the terminology of being 'a neutral'. It's not something I've come across before. It sounds like something from across the Atlantic, from the kind of discussions that produced terms like 'snowflake' and 'libtard' etc. I was just wondering if this term is commonplace now?

makeorbrake wrote: »

Being deliberately obtuse once again, I see. You were the one that said people were ignorant. Consumers are quite capable of determining what represents a value proposition. As regards your shock absorbers, all cars are tested in Ireland.

Consumers really aren't good at evaluating safety. If they were, they wouldn't be obsessed with helmets for cyclists but not for motorists and pedestrians. And yes, all cars are tested, but domestic cars aren't tested as frequently or stringently as taxis. Is this another one of the regulations that Uber wants to bypass?

makeorbrake wrote: »

Others do but don't you bother your pretty little head about it.

Given that it's not a grammatically correct sentence, I really doubt if anyone has managed to work it out, but it's up to yourself either way.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Obtuse once again - given that we've been over this a million times. It means that given the other party to that specific discussion said that it was irrelevant to the discussion, there's no need to discuss it further as it doesn't bring the discussion on any further.

The 'other party' seems to have a different view about the relevance or otherwise of the claim. Could you please point out specifically where the other party said that it was irrelevant? And if it was irrelevant, why did you mention it in the first place?

makeorbrake wrote: »

Obtuse once again.
What I said was that Uber is a technology company - and that their APP is central to their offering.

The great thing about these discussions is that you can scroll back and see what you actually said. And funnily enough, it's a bit different to what you're now claiming you said. Is more Trump 'fake news' where you just shout loudly and hope that no-one actually looks at the detail? Maybe that's what you meant to say, but it's not what you actually said. So feel free to withdraw your original claim and replace it with this much more sensible claim, which I'd generally agree with, btw.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Facts, huh? The irony!
Right, so experts who concern themselves with innovation say that Uber has innovated and you disagree on the basis of your Uncle Jim's experience with his Cortina in the 70's? I guess we all know who is the most credible there then.

I guess you have a comprehension difficulty in determining how innovation works. It happens when one or more companies alters industry practice or consumer behaviour. A few years ago, nobody used an APP to access transportation. Now the whole planet does. That, my friend, is innovation.

Facilitating credit card as opposed to cash - the very same.

The history of tech is full of snake oil salesmen or Emperor's New Clothes evangelists telling us what's great for us and what the great new world is going to be. We've been hearing that nonsense about bitcoin for the past few years again and again, but the reality never quite seems to get here. It's generally not a great idea to take newspaper articles at face value.
The facts remain that all the points that you claim are such great innovations by Uber have been done before by others. Uncle Jim did the family car taxi service choosing his own hours in the 70s. Hailo/MyTaxi did ordering by app and payments by credit card. There really is nothing unique in Uber's business model, apart from the need to bypass regulation - hence their frantic efforts to not be legally seen as a transport provider (to avoid accessibility and other requirements) or an employer.
If there is something factually wrong with anything I've said above, please feel free to point out the factual errors.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Well, thats not going to be an option for you given that you're ideologically opposed to using Uber - or any other ride sharing app. So that would leave you taking a taxi in - and taxi men here have been complicit in robbing people.

Where exactly did I say that I was idealogically opposed to ride-sharing? Is this another of those things that you've just made up?

makeorbrake wrote: »

Yes, you did. You started making comparisons with the great system in Ireland not even having an earthly clue what you were comparing it to.

How could I have made comparisons when I don't actually know where you're based? Is this yet another of those things that you just made up?

makeorbrake wrote: »

So sexual deviants and mobsters have (and still do) hold taxi licenses. Thanks for clearing that up - very helpful.

I'm sure that are sexual deviants who have taxi licenses. And sexual deviants who have doctors licences. And sexual deviants who have accounting licenses. Being a sexual deviant is not illegal, or not actually a bad thing. Sexual assault is indeed a bad thing, but that's fairly different from deviancy.
As for the mobsters who hold taxi licences, I think you need to look closer to home;
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/14/business/uber-driver-accused-war-criminal-invs/index.html
https://money.cnn.com/2018/04/30/technology/uber-driver-sexual-assault/index.html
https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/28/15887566/uber-driver-rape-lawsuit-warning-kansas-city
http://www.whosdrivingyou.org/rideshare-incidents

makeorbrake wrote: »

You can try and be as disingenuous about it all you want. You used the doctor analogy which equates to the same thing. Try and weasel out of it all you want.

'Equates to the same thing'? Only in your twisted imagination. The words I used are crystal clear - I didn't equate taxi drivers to doctors. Please do go back and read those words.

makeorbrake wrote: »

And what you're doing here is disgusting - hiding behind the disabled. That issue can be tackled in any number of ways - none of which has to affect ride sharing services to the point where it makes ride sharing unworkable. And by the very fact that ride sharing is impossible in Ireland, it means there are fewer options for consumers - which will have a knock on effect in terms of the WAV's available to those with disabilities anyway.

Once more - absolutely disgusting that you would hide behind the disabled in all of this.

Again, the disgusting behaviour of hiding behind the disabled in order to further your agenda.

I don't suppose there's any chance that you care to share details of the 'any number of ways' that accessible taxi services for the one-seventh of the population that have some form of disability? Given that this challenge has persisted in most civilised societies, I'm really looking forward to hearing about your simple solutions to this.

devnull · 16-06-2019 5:46pm

Warning to all - any more personal attacks or uncivil behaviour will lead to warnings and/or infractions.

Please keep it civil and do not reply to this post

- Moderator

usernamegoes · 16-06-2019 6:05pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

I'm not lobbying for or against it, just trying to show how idiotic your suggestion that it's all to do with the taxi drivers is.

Of course it's idiotic!!!! I totally agree. But you don't really care that it has the same effect on those who are not already taxi or hackney drivers and it seems you don't care because it helps you.

end of the road · 16-06-2019 7:57pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

Gee, I dunno.... perhaps we could do something radical like let the consumer decide.

no . vetting is how it is and how it should be. that way we can pick up on individuals who are known to be, or suspected to be a danger to individuals. vetting won't always get it right or remove a problem totally but simply leaving it to the consumer was tried and it failed. also there is the issue that some consumers have a problem with a driver with a different colour of skin driving them (how we deal with that i don't know) but it is another example of why leaving things to the consumer is not always viable.

makeorbrake · 16-06-2019 8:48pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Does this mean that you subscribe to the belief that everyone has equal expert knowledge of every topic? It just seems a little bit 'communist' for you. Is it possible in your world that some people know more than others about any given topic?

I ascribe to the notion that you respect the opinions of all (at least up until the point at which someone becomes disrespectful.). That's the way I was brought up. Perhaps some were less fortunate in their upbringing - who knows.
You seem determined to brand me in a derogatory way with some form of ideology. It's unbecoming and has nothing to do with the discussion topic.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yeah, I get the point about being neutral - my question was more about the terminology of being 'a neutral'. It's not something I've come across before. It sounds like something from across the Atlantic, from the kind of discussions that produced terms like 'snowflake' and 'libtard' etc. I was just wondering if this term is commonplace now?
.

Well I'll leave you to your musings on the term 'neutral'. I mean it could mean someone who neither has skin in the game financially or brings this entrenched political ideology into the mix but we can only muse about such things.

With regard to your politically charged phraseology, I have nothing that I wish to add at this time. Readers can make up their own minds.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Consumers really aren't good at evaluating safety. If they were, they wouldn't be obsessed with helmets for cyclists but not for motorists and pedestrians. And yes, all cars are tested, but domestic cars aren't tested as frequently or stringently as taxis. Is this another one of the regulations that Uber wants to bypass?

On the one hand it's wonderful that there are people so altruistic out there to champion the needs of consumers that they are unaware of to protect them from themselves. On the other hand, I don't much care for lies. Can you back up your claim that Uber Inc have expressed the specific desire to see their users break such regulation?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Given that it's not a grammatically correct sentence, I really doubt if anyone has managed to work it out, but it's up to yourself either way.

It certainly appears to me that your comment in this instance lacks maturity. Despite the English lesson, everyone understood the statement including yourself. Therefore it's disappointing that you would look for an opportunity to be pedantic and disingenuous rather than address the point but there you go. I guess it's always best not to set your expectations high.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The 'other party' seems to have a different view about the relevance or otherwise of the claim. Could you please point out specifically where the other party said that it was irrelevant? And if it was irrelevant, why did you mention it in the first place?

No, thank you. I think I've been more than patient on the subject.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The great thing about these discussions is that you can scroll back and see what you actually said. And funnily enough, it's a bit different to what you're now claiming you said. Is more Trump 'fake news' where you just shout loudly and hope that no-one actually looks at the detail? Maybe that's what you meant to say, but it's not what you actually said. So feel free to withdraw your original claim and replace it with this much more sensible claim, which I'd generally agree with, btw..

I won't be retracting anything, thank you. If you have a claim to make and may I add one that isn't obtuse and pedantic, I certainly invite you to both make and substantiate it.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The history of tech is full of snake oil salesmen or Emperor's New Clothes evangelists telling us what's great for us and what the great new world is going to be. We've been hearing that nonsense about bitcoin for the past few years again and again, but the reality never quite seems to get here. It's generally not a great idea to take newspaper articles at face value.

Thank you most humbly for the tech history lesson. Most insightful. Now would you care to disclose to readers why it was that you specifically homed in with the disparaging remarks about Bitcoin?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The facts remain that all the points that you claim are such great innovations by Uber have been done before by others. Uncle Jim did the family car taxi service choosing his own hours in the 70s.

My, what a shame that the world didn't come to appreciate Uncle Jim's innovation what with him being the original Uber. My, wouldn't it have been amazing if he made it out to Silicon Valley back then?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Hailo/MyTaxi did ordering by app and payments by credit card. There really is nothing unique in Uber's business model,

Isn't it amazing too how all these experts on innovation worldwide have gotten it so wrong? According to what you say, they have gotten it sooo wrong in accrediting Uber as being such an innovative company.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

, apart from the need to bypass regulation

Interesting. I mean so you and others keep saying yet it's factually incorrect. Uber have made no public pronunciation that they will bypass regulation.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Where exactly did I say that I was idealogically opposed to ride-sharing? Is this another of those things that you've just made up?.

You have brought ideology and political themes into the discussion as they pertain to yourself and as you perceive them in others on numerous occasions.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

How could I have made comparisons when I don't actually know where you're based? Is this yet another of those things that you just made up?.

Yeah, that just makes it worse on your account, sorry to say.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm sure that are sexual deviants who have taxi licenses. And sexual deviants who have doctors licences. And sexual deviants who have accounting licenses. Being a sexual deviant is not illegal, or not actually a bad thing. Sexual assault is indeed a bad thing, but that's fairly different from deviancy. .

Respectfully, your claims then are a nonsense in terms of the expectations consumers can have re. Vetted taxi drivers when some were convicted deviants/criminals yet were awarded taxi licenses following vetting.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

'Equates to the same thing'? Only in your twisted imagination. The words I used are crystal clear - I didn't equate taxi drivers to doctors. Please do go back and read those words.

It is indeed most regrettable but it's true. You used the analogy of a doctor and put taxi drivers on the same level.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I don't suppose there's any chance that you care to share details of the 'any number of ways' that accessible taxi services for the one-seventh of the population that have some form of disability? Given that this challenge has persisted in most civilised societies, I'm really looking forward to hearing about your simple solutions to this.

Respectfully no, there isn't.its quite unfortunate but I have not found your engagement in this discussion to be in any way constructive. On that basis, I decline your kind offer.

Spook_ie · 16-06-2019 10:15pm

usernamegoes wrote: »

Regardless of what you say is Government policy. You'd lobby with us to change these rules because it's a bad policy. You're not pretending to agree with Government policy and that Government policy is correct because it protects you?

Why is it a bad policy to get the number of WATs up to a percentage of the taxi fleet?
What workable changes to policy would you lobby for to ACTUALLY obtain an increase of WATs?

AndrewJRenko · 16-06-2019 11:13pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

I ascribe to the notion that you respect the opinions of all (at least up until the point at which someone becomes disrespectful.). That's the way I was brought up. Perhaps some were less fortunate in their upbringing - who knows.
You seem determined to brand me in a derogatory way with some form of ideology. It's unbecoming and has nothing to do with the discussion topic.

I'm really just trying to see if there is any consistency in your position, and I'm struggling to find it, to be honest. Respect for opinions is great and all that, but opinions aren't knowledge. Opinions aren't facts. When we're seriously ill , or when we need a house designed or a car repaired, we don't go out to the whole world and get 'opinions' from everybody - we go to an expert. There is a difference between opinions and expert opinion.

makeorbrake wrote: »

On the one hand it's wonderful that there are people so altruistic out there to champion the needs of consumers that they are unaware of to protect them from themselves. On the other hand, I don't much care for lies. Can you back up your claim that Uber Inc have expressed the specific desire to see their users break such regulation?

Championing the needs of consumers is not 'altruistic'. It is the job of regulators. It's the statutory function of the regulatory bodies set out in law. They don't do this to be nice - they do it because it's what they're paid to do.
There's that strawman thing where you exaggerate and twist something that I've said so that you can argue with it. If you've any questions about what I actually said, I'll be happy to answer them.

makeorbrake wrote: »

It certainly appears to me that your comment in this instance lacks maturity. Despite the English lesson, everyone understood the statement including yourself. Therefore it's disappointing that you would look for an opportunity to be pedantic and disingenuous rather than address the point but there you go. I guess it's always best not to set your expectations high.

Honestly, I had two or three goes at working out what the hell you were getting at. I still have no idea what you were at.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Thank you most humbly for the tech history lesson. Most insightful. Now would you care to disclose to readers why it was that you specifically homed in with the disparaging remarks about Bitcoin?

Bitcoin was the most immediate example that sprang to mind about for that kind of 'emperor's new clothes' syndrome. You've seen it yourself, right? It's not the only example, but it's one of the most topical, I guess.

makeorbrake wrote: »

My, what a shame that the world didn't come to appreciate Uncle Jim's innovation what with him being the original Uber. My, wouldn't it have been amazing if he made it out to Silicon Valley back then?

Isn't it amazing too how all these experts on innovation worldwide have gotten it so wrong? According to what you say, they have gotten it sooo wrong in accrediting Uber as being such an innovative company.

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. I wasn't suggesting that Uncle Jim was innovative at all. He was doing the same thing that drivers have done since the radio became a feasible option for them - using the family car to work his own hours as a taxi. There was nothing particularly innovative when he did in the 70s, and nothing particularly innovative when Uber enabled it 50 years later. You keep banging the innovation drum, but you haven't identified any specific business model or innovation that was unique to Uber.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Interesting. I mean so you and others keep saying yet it's factually incorrect. Uber have made no public pronunciation that they will bypass regulation.

But that's what you've said - they can't operate under current regulations, right? So they have to find a way to get past them.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Respectfully, your claims then are a nonsense in terms of the expectations consumers can have re. Vetted taxi drivers when some were convicted deviants/criminals yet were awarded taxi licenses following vetting.

No-one is convicted of deviancy. Deviancy isn't a crime - more like a hobby. But there are lots of taxi drivers and Uber drivers that have been convicted of various crimes.

makeorbrake wrote: »

It is indeed most regrettable but it's true. You used the analogy of a doctor and put taxi drivers on the same level.

Factually wrong again - I compared your proposed regulation of taxi drivers to regulation of doctors. No more and no less.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Respectfully no, there isn't.its quite unfortunate but I have not found your engagement in this discussion to be in any way constructive. On that basis, I decline your kind offer.

That's a shame, because it sounded like you had access to several simple solutions that have eluded experts in the field across many countries for the past fifty years. I was really looking forward to hearing details of those solutions. I guess I should file this under the 'four companies' category.

makeorbrake · 17-06-2019 1:23am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm really just trying to see if there is any consistency in your position, and I'm struggling to find it, to be honest. Respect for opinions is great and all that, but opinions aren't knowledge. Opinions aren't facts. When we're seriously ill , or when we need a house designed or a car repaired, we don't go out to the whole world and get 'opinions' from everybody - we go to an expert. There is a difference between opinions and expert opinion.

Right, so you don't find any 'consistency in my 'position'. I'm sorry for your loss. You and I both know that we're going to disagree so the logical thing there is that we park this up. I'd encourage you to leave it at that.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There's that strawman thing where you exaggerate and twist something that I've said so that you can argue with it. If you've any questions about what I actually said, I'll be happy to answer them.

That's your position about the twisting and strawman this and that. Best of luck with it. In the meantime, you failed to face up to what I challenged you on - which is the fact that Uber Inc. have never called on any of people that use their platform to break regulation in any jurisdiction. There's no great shame in accepting and acknowledging that you made a mistake.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Honestly, I had two or three goes at working out what the hell you were getting at. I still have no idea what you were at.

I simply don't believe that but there you go. That said, if you don't understand it, then don't comment on it. Simples.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Bitcoin was the most immediate example that sprang to mind about for that kind of 'emperor's new clothes' syndrome. You've seen it yourself, right? It's not the only example, but it's one of the most topical, I guess.

Now this one is interesting. You are LYING - plain and simple. Over the past 12 months, 99.99% of my interest in boards.ie is confined to the cryptocurrency sub-forum. It's sad but it's as clear and night and day - you went through my old posts to find that out. You'll come back and say that's not so, yada, yada. Whatever - I'm not buying what you're selling on this one. I don't believe in coincidences.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You keep banging the innovation drum, but you haven't identified any specific business model or innovation that was unique to Uber

It's sad news to hear that 'Uncle Jim' isn't the innovator that I thought you said he was. As regards Uber - regardless of what lack of esteem you hold them in - they have been recognised as such. You can come back and regurgitate that and say the opposite, and I do the same and we can keep going round in a vortex, I don't mind. Whichever you prefer.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

But that's what you've said - they can't operate under current regulations, right? So they have to find a way to get past them.

And I guess this is where all these misunderstandings of yours come from - i.e. you misunderstanding. I never said that uber should break the law and Uber has never instructed anyone that operates on their platform to break the law.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No-one is convicted of deviancy. Deviancy isn't a crime - more like a hobby. But there are lots of taxi drivers and Uber drivers that have been convicted of various crimes.

And yet there have been a string of people that have criminal convictions that have been and/or are currently taxi drivers in Ireland. Go figure.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Factually wrong again - I compared your proposed regulation of taxi drivers to regulation of doctors. No more and no less.

I wasn't 'factually wrong' the first time round - nor on this occasion. You used the analogy of a doctor to big up what an irish taxi driver brought to the table - that we all should be mortified to sit in a car with someone who wasn't professionally trained (!) to do the job - the same as if we had a doctor that wasn't qualified to do the job.

AndrewJRenko wrote:

That's a shame, because it sounded like you had access to several simple solutions that have eluded experts in the field across many countries for the past fifty years. I was really looking forward to hearing details of those solutions. I guess I should file this under the 'four companies' category.

It is ever so disappointing for you, I would imagine. Perhaps you can have a word with the great innovator, 'Uncle Jim' - he may have some ideas. But I'll leave that between the two of you.

AndrewJRenko · 17-06-2019 6:47am

makeorbrake wrote: »

It's sad news to hear that 'Uncle Jim' isn't the innovator that I thought you said he was. As regards Uber - regardless of what lack of esteem you hold them in - they have been recognised as such. You can come back and regurgitate that and say the opposite, and I do the same and we can keep going round in a vortex, I don't mind. Whichever you prefer.

Well, usually with an adult discussion, the next step would be for you to outline what is actually innovative about Uber. Whenever you're ready...

makeorbrake · 17-06-2019 8:29am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Well, usually with an adult discussion, the next step would be for you to outline what is actually innovative about Uber. Whenever you're ready...

It's been covered ad nauseum. Additionally, experts in innovation have been cited - with links to same. An 'adult' would normally acknowledge that - but if you can't then that's as far as it goes.

AndrewJRenko · 17-06-2019 8:59am

makeorbrake wrote: »

It's been covered ad nauseum. Additionally, experts in innovation have been cited - with links to same. An 'adult' would normally acknowledge that - but if you can't then that's as far as it goes.

So that's another one for the 'four companies' pile. What a shame.

There’s not really a lot of depth behind your opinion, is there? If a small amount of probing exposes such obvious gaps, there is a message there.

makeorbrake · 17-06-2019 11:15am

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So that's another one for the 'four companies' pile. What a shame.

There’s not really a lot of depth behind your opinion, is there? If a small amount of probing exposes such obvious gaps, there is a message there.

In your own world, it seems that's true. For anyone else, you repeating the same claim over and over - ad nauseum doesn't give it greater weight. Quite the opposite. There's your 'message'.

monument · 17-06-2019 11:24am

Lads — please stop the bickering.

If you guys are telling each other than you are both going around in circles, it’s time to stop chasing your tail.

— moderator

usernamegoes · 17-06-2019 7:22pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why is it a bad policy to get the number of WATs up to a percentage of the taxi fleet?
What workable changes to policy would you lobby for to ACTUALLY obtain an increase of WATs?

If the government and regulator genuinely wanted to improve access for those who have disabilities not only those in wheelchairs, they would remove artificial barriers to entry which should increase the number of cars available for hire. This would mean that WAT are less likely to be taken up by those who don't need them. It also means that those who don't need WAT but are otherwise disabled are more likely to get a car when they needed one too. It's no good all the cars being WATs but being unable to get one when it's busy.

In terms of increasing the number of WATs, the government could increase the grant available and introduce some tax incentives for those who drive them. Although I've not thought about this too much perhaps they could offer incentives to those who do have them like perhaps making bus lanes only for those who have them perhaps.

Spook_ie · 17-06-2019 8:03pm

usernamegoes wrote: »

If the government and regulator genuinely wanted to improve access for those who have disabilities not only those in wheelchairs, they would remove artificial barriers to entry which should increase the number of cars available for hire. This would mean that WAT are less likely to be taken up by those who don't need them. It also means that those who don't need WAT but are otherwise disabled are more likely to get a car when they needed one too. It's no good all the cars being WATs but being unable to get one when it's busy.

In terms of increasing the number of WATs, the government could increase the grant available and introduce some tax incentives for those who drive them. Although I've not thought about this too much perhaps they could offer incentives to those who do have them like perhaps making bus lanes only for those who have them perhaps.

Removing the barriers to cars entering has the opposite effect, why pay 20k upwards for a 2nd hand WAT when you can put a newer reasonable spec saloon on the road for 15-20k, that's exactly what happened after deregulation in 2000, people brought 6.5k licenses and 4-5k cars to get on the road, almost no one was putting WATs into service, resulting in the number of WATs in service dropping. So why would anyone put WATs on the road unless they have to, as it is now.

Already said earlier that VRT on WATs should be removed as long as they are in service as taxis. How much of a subsidy do you think should be given? Maybe anyone who wanted to go ride-sharing could pay a registration fee and then a €150 a year afterwards and hand it out in grants, exactly what happens now with taxi license fees.

As to the bus lanes only for WATs then everyone would be ordering them because they were able to use the bus lanes. So still no WAT availability for those that depend on them.

Good try but really needs more fleshing out.

listermint · 17-06-2019 8:16pm

I hadn't realised my taxi won't allow hackneys on their service when did this start. I think hailo used to allow them.

That's a bit poxy for someone that is legally allowed to take pre-booked work.

Not cool.

Spook_ie · 17-06-2019 8:21pm

listermint wrote: »

I hadn't realised my taxi won't allow hackneys on their service when did this start. I think hailo used to allow them.

That's a bit poxy for someone that is legally allowed to take pre-booked work.

Not cool.

Didn't he say they'd put him on as a limousine, for some reason he thinks his SPSV insurance would be voided or that customers would be expecting a Merc, BMW, Rolls etc. rather than his Octavia.

Hard scrolling back on the phone so going from memory here

listermint · 17-06-2019 8:23pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Didn't he say they'd put him on as a limousine, for some reason he thinks his SPSV insurance would be voided or that customers would be expecting a Merc, BMW, Rolls etc. rather than his Octavia.

Hard scrolling back on the phone so going from memory here

Wouldn't a customer have to choose limousine options ?

I don't know how it works myself but surely it doesn't work the same way.

Insurance wouldn't be impacted I think that's a cod.

AndrewJRenko · 17-06-2019 8:53pm

usernamegoes wrote: »

If the government and regulator genuinely wanted to improve access for those who have disabilities not only those in wheelchairs, they would remove artificial barriers to entry which should increase the number of cars available for hire. This would mean that WAT are less likely to be taken up by those who don't need them. It also means that those who don't need WAT but are otherwise disabled are more likely to get a car when they needed one too. It's no good all the cars being WATs but being unable to get one when it's busy.

That's exactly the situation that was in place for the years after deregulation in 2000 up to the introduction of the WAV scheme (around 2014 I think). It didn't increase the availability of WAVs in the slightest.

usernamegoes · 17-06-2019 9:27pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Removing the barriers to cars entering has the opposite effect, why pay 20k upwards for a 2nd hand WAT when you can put a newer reasonable spec saloon on the road for 15-20k, that's exactly what happened after deregulation in 2000, people brought 6.5k licenses and 4-5k cars to get on the road, almost no one was putting WATs into service, resulting in the number of WATs in service dropping. So why would anyone put WATs on the road unless they have to, as it is now.

Already said earlier that VRT on WATs should be removed as long as they are in service as taxis. How much of a subsidy do you think should be given? Maybe anyone who wanted to go ride-sharing could pay a registration fee and then a €150 a year afterwards and hand it out in grants, exactly what happens now with taxi license fees.

As to the bus lanes only for WATs then everyone would be ordering them because they were able to use the bus lanes. So still no WAT availability for those that depend on them.

Good try but really needs more fleshing out.

Totally disagree on your counter to my point on increasing the number of cars available. This would single-handedly improve the situation for disabled travellers.

I agree on the VRT point. Not sure on how much of a subsidy It's obviously needs to be more than it is now, but I'd be interested to hear argument on quantum or other innovative solutions to encouraging WAVs for those who are interested instead of using a sledge hammer to crack a nut as is the case now and being left with a ****ty nut even when it is cracked.

My point on bus lanes was for WAV taxis only and only in situations where all taxis can use them now. To be clear I don't think ride-sharing vehicles should be allowed use bus lanes.

Relatively constructive post until the needless patronizing at the end.

usernamegoes · 17-06-2019 9:35pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

That's exactly the situation that was in place for the years after deregulation in 2000 up to the introduction of the WAV scheme (around 2014 I think). It didn't increase the availability of WAVs in the slightest.

Not sure where I said it would increase the number of WAVs. I said it would make getting a WAV easier for those who needed them.

Look, lets be honest you know that everyone knows that you honestly aren't that concerned with the WAV issue for the beneficent goal of allowing those who need them get them. You guys know that each other don't believe it and know that we don't believe you.

I get that it's an issue to do with more competition for those already in the industry. Many industries try it in one way or another. So why not just say it and ague against more taxis and hackneys because you say it'll make your job unsustainable or it's unfair because you've invested a lot in your job or something else. But realistically, no one buys the WAV argument and you know that already.

AndrewJRenko · 17-06-2019 9:41pm

usernamegoes wrote: »

Not sure where I said it would increase the number of WAVs. I said it would make getting a WAV easier for those who needed them.

Like I said, I didn't increase the availability of WAVs - customers with disabilities were routinely unable to get taxis to get to work, to job interviews, to concerts or cinemas or theatres, or to get them home from the pub at the end of a night out. Your proposed solution isn't a solution to this issue.

usernamegoes wrote: »

Look, lets be honest you know that everyone knows that you honestly aren't that concerned with the WAV issue for the beneficent goal of allowing those who need them get them. You guys know that each other don't believe it and know that we don't believe you.

I get that it's an issue to do with more competition for those already in the industry. Many industries try it in one way or another. So why not just say it and ague against more taxis and hackneys because you say it'll make your job unsustainable or it's unfair because you've invested a lot in your job or something else. But realistically, no one buys the WAV argument and you know that already.

What you believe is your choice. If you talk to anyone who was involved in the disability sector, or the Dept Transport Accessible Transport Committee, or the Taxi Advisory Council over that period, they will make it very clear to you how big an issue this was at that time, and indeed still is.

usernamegoes · 17-06-2019 10:08pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Like I said, I didn't increase the availability of WAVs - customers with disabilities were routinely unable to get taxis to get to work, to job interviews, to concerts or cinemas or theatres, or to get them home from the pub at the end of a night out. Your proposed solution isn't a solution to this issue.

Like I said. I didn't say it would. It would be better overall though.

What you believe is your choice. If you talk to anyone who was involved in the disability sector, or the Dept Transport Accessible Transport Committee, or the Taxi Advisory Council over that period, they will make it very clear to you how big an issue this was at that time, and indeed still is.

Look no one buys it. I can't remember if you are a taxi driver and if you drive a WAT or not. But If you are and if you don't drive a WAT then I think that's proof enough.

makeorbrake · 17-06-2019 10:30pm

usernamegoes wrote: »

Like I said. I didn't say it would. It would be better overall though.

Look no one buys it. I can't remember if you are a taxi driver and if you drive a WAT or not. But If you are and if you don't drive a WAT then I think that's proof enough.

I think you know this already but some elements here will have you believe that there is only one conceivable solution to the facilitation of mobility services for wheelchair users. That's not the case - but of course, it can be quite the flag of convenience if it also stunts the development of ride sharing services.

AndrewJRenko · 17-06-2019 10:31pm

usernamegoes wrote: »

Like I said. I didn't say it would. It would be better overall though.

Except it wasn't better overall. If you talk to anyone who worked in the sector at the time, you'll see that it wasn't better, and came nowhere near providing a decent solution. Here's a view from one of the leading disability organisations;

https://www.disability-federation.ie/about/publications/august-2014-newsletter/full-text/

usernamegoes wrote: »

Look no one buys it. I can't remember if you are a taxi driver and if you drive a WAT or not. But If you are and if you don't drive a WAT then I think that's proof enough.

I'm not a taxi driver. I've never been a taxi driver. I've no vested interest in taxi services, apart from being an occasional taxi customer.

If you have any magic solutions to this issue, please share them. It's unlikely that people will take you seriously if you pretend that solutions exist but you fail to explain what these are.

usernamegoes · 17-06-2019 10:43pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

https://www.disability-federation.ie/about/publications/august-2014-newsletter/full-text/

I stopped reading after it said the information presented was from Wheelchairtaxi.ie a website which sells, you guessed it, WAVs

Spook_ie · 17-06-2019 11:08pm

usernamegoes wrote: »

Totally disagree on your counter to my point on increasing the number of cars available. This would single-handedly improve the situation for disabled travellers.

I agree on the VRT point. Not sure on how much of a subsidy It's obviously needs to be more than it is now, but I'd be interested to hear argument on quantum or other innovative solutions to encouraging WAVs for those who are interested instead of using a sledge hammer to crack a nut as is the case now and being left with a ****ty nut even when it is cracked.

My point on bus lanes was for WAV taxis only and only in situations where all taxis can use them now. To be clear I don't think ride-sharing vehicles should be allowed use bus lanes.

Relatively constructive post until the needless patronizing at the end.

Your premise of having more cars would increase the availability of WATs falls at the first fence.

WAT operators require to be able to cover normal fares as well to cover the additional costs associated with WATs. You increase the number of cars you decrease their overall profitability by reducing the availability of non disabled fares, brief math of it, may not be accurate but you'll get the gist.

Available Taxi income as a sector non WAT users €2,000,000,000
Available Taxi Income created by WAT users who need a WAT €100,000,000
So 5% of the available market is pure WAT, you obviously need more than 5% of the fleet to be WAT accessible to cover them effectively to allow for travel times, non 24 hour drivers, holidays, breakdowns etc. So we'll set an arbitrary figure of 10%

Let's assume that all drivers get an equitable income from their work, and the fleet consists of 20,000 saloon cars and 2000 WATs (10%)

Income for the WATs and Saloons would be 90K or so ( if only )
Income for the WATs from WAT work would be 50k

Now you increase the number of saloons by 25%, to 25,000
Income for WATs and Saloons drops to 74K( again if only )
Income from WAT work remains at 50K but the loss to WATs because you introduced more competition is 16k overall.

Now unless you are proposing that WATs are only ever used to transport WA passengers in which case you need to supplement the WATs by several thousand per year then introducing more saloons is detrimental to WATs therefore in the long run detrimental to their availability. This is what happened in the years before allowing only WAT licenses to be issued, the number of WATs dropped.

The question of VRT on WATs has been raised before and no doubt will be raised again, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater because you want more saloons or ride sharing is just not a solution.

Dec 2006

June 2007

July 2010

Oct 2010

Glad to see you disagree about ride share not being allowed to use bus lanes, but, (EDIT) If you bar saloon taxis from the buslanes then (END EDIT) unless you bar able bodied people from taking the WATs then anybody wanting to get into town quickly via the bus lanes is going to book a WAT, cutting their availability even more.

Wasn't meant to be condescending as I said good effort but no figures to even try backing up the thought process of more saloons increasing the availability of WATs

AndrewJRenko · 17-06-2019 11:09pm

usernamegoes wrote: »

I stopped reading after it said the information presented was from Wheelchairtaxi.ie a website which sells, you guessed it, WAVs

Can I suggest that, if you really don't know much about a topic or an issue, you don't dig a bigger and bigger hole for yourself.

Wheelchairtaxi.ie was set up by Stephen Cluskey, a wheelchair user as a portal for registering owners/operators of WAVs to allow people to book directly with the driver, as this was the only way wheelchair users could have any hope of booking a vehicle.

Here's an article from that time with more details;

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/taxis-wheelchair-access-dublin-ireland-1429299-Apr2014/

At some time since then, the domain has been sold or reused by a seller of WAVs, but that's not what it was at the time that the article was written. Stephen has now moved on to other things with his new venture, Mobility Mojo.

Spook_ie · 17-06-2019 11:23pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

<Snipped>

https://www.disability-federation.ie/about/publications/august-2014-newsletter/full-text/

<snipped>

Am I missing something here, link for me goes to August 2014 newsletter? but as regards Stephen Cluskey From your last post perhaps this might also help educate the forum members

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Cluskey

AndrewJRenko · 17-06-2019 11:34pm

Spook_ie wrote: »

Am I missing something here, link for me goes to August 2014 newsletter? ]

Scroll down in the newsletter

Spook_ie · 17-06-2019 11:35pm

makeorbrake wrote: »

I think you know this already but some elements here will have you believe that there is only one conceivable solution to the facilitation of mobility services for wheelchair users. That's not the case - but of course, it can be quite the flag of convenience if it also stunts the development of ride sharing services.

I just know I'm going to regret engaging with you and your lack of facts to back up your statements BUT what, if any, are your conceivable solutions?

Spook_ie · 17-06-2019 11:35pm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Scroll down in the newsletter

How far?

EDIT Found it but it's a long scroll
For convenience of others

New Regulations May Ease “Crisis Point” in Wheelchair Taxi Numbers
In April 2014, new regulations on the taxi industry were introduced by the National Transport Authority, many of which relate to wheelchair-accessible taxis. Stephen Cluskey, founder of Wheelchairtaxi.ie, was involved in the committee process which decided on these measures. Here, he highlights some of the changes and gives his opinion on them.

In terms of accessibility, the new taxi regulations are not perfect, but they are the most significant changes we have seen in a very long time, aiming to help wheelchair taxi drivers and their passengers.

Let’s start with one that seemed to get some media attention: the lowering of standards for a wheelchair-accessible taxi. Previous regulation stated that a wheelchair-accessible taxi must be able to take “a wheelchair user plus three passengers”, but this has been changed to “a wheelchair user plus one passenger”. This opens up the Irish market to more affordable vehicles, such as the Peugeot Premier, which cost in the region of €27,500, including Value Added Tax (VAT) and Vehicle Registration Tax (VRT); previously, the cheapest new wheelchair-accessible taxi a driver could purchase was upwards of €40,000. These operate great as a regular taxi and feel far more comfortable for a wheelchair user in comparison to many of the seven-seaters currently out there. They provide taxi drivers who want to do wheelchair work with a good alternative option to what is currently out there, at a far more reasonable price.

There is no maximum age limit for current operating wheelchair-accessible taxis, and this will not be changed. The reason behind this is because there has been such depletion in numbers (more than 40% in the last two years alone) that, if these vehicles were taken off the road, they would not be readily replaced. Some of these vehicles are not fully suitable (although many are), but I think it is better to have something rather than nothing at all. I know from experience it is not pleasant being stranded with no way home as there is no wheelchair-accessible taxi, and taking these vehicles off the road overnight would only make the situation for wheelchair users much worse.

New and replacement wheelchair-accessible taxis will, however, be subject to a 14 year age limit rule, in comparison to ten years for a saloon taxi. New wheelchair taxis will also now need to be less than six years old, in comparison to three years for a saloon taxi. This six-year rule was introduced to try to bridge the price difference between saloon and wheelchair taxis, making the latter more affordable for drivers, with a longer lifespan of 14 years.

Under the new regulations, drivers will now be able to swap their existing licence from a standard taxi to a wheelchair accessible taxi, which they previously could not do. They can also change back to their saloon licence if they wish; this gives the driver some flexibility should they wish to pursue either route. Personally, I would prefer a driver not to be able to change back, as I feel we should be moving towards a taxi industry which is inclusive to everyone in society, but can understand the thinking behind this as many drivers invested significantly in their saloon licences. The six-year rule also applies to the wheelchair-accessible vehicle age for a licence swap.

These new regulations are not perfect, but I believe they will go a long way to encouraging more drivers to opt for a wheelchair-accessible taxi over a saloon in a time where, for example, there are only two wheelchair-accessible taxis throughout the whole of Tipperary. I recently got an e-mail from someone in Donegal who couldn’t get a wheelchair-accessible taxi to take their mother to the funeral of her own husband. These sorts of stories are rarely heard about, but happen everyday and they are not acceptable in Ireland 2014. Taxis are the only real door to door public transport service for many people, and should not exclude members of our society. We are at crisis point with wheelchair taxi numbers, even though the taxi industry as a whole is a saturated market, but I see these new regulations as a good first step to going some way to addressing this issue.

makeorbrake · 18-06-2019 12:15am

Spook_ie wrote: »

I just know I'm going to regret engaging with you and your lack of facts to back up your statements BUT what, if any, are your conceivable solutions?

That factually inaccurate claim (one of countless at this stage) is not deserving of such a response.

Uber

Comments