Uber

howiya wrote: »

I assume you're referring to the entry cost rather than the annual operating cost of the licence.

Since the NTA aren't currently accepting new licence applications in this category the €6,300 fee isn't relevant to the argument. The only new taxi licences available cost €170.

Which means you need to have a wheelchair accessible car to avail of this taxi license, you left out that bit. Such a car would cost well north of 20,000 euro if not more.

So to repeat the question that you gave the above answer to,

What do people think is unfair or unsuitable about current Irish taxi regulation that they want Uber to bypass it?

You answered this yourself, the fact that its a closed shop, that even if there was a license available you had to fork out €6,300 but alas even these are not available anymore. If someone wants to drive a taxi or operate a ride sharing car, they should be allowed to once they have a full clean license, their car is road worthy and they don't have a criminal record. Such a license could be granted for €100.

markodaly wrote: »

Not at all. People use regulation as a way to justify existing market practice that remain inefficient, old and out of date. The argument against uber or similar ride sharing services I hear is often one about passenger safety yet, no one questions how safe are our existing taxi's and has there been some proper research into if one is actually safer then the other.

For me it's only a small bit about passenger safety, but mostly it's about fairness of competition. You either deregulate all taxis, or Uber must adhere to regulations also. There is no middle ground that works here.

Tell me this, it is safer for a woman on their own to hail a cab on a street corner at 2:30 am, or is it safer for them to use a ride sharing app to order a ride, whereby the driver, the car and the journey itself is completely mapped, logged and recorded.

I think it's safest, out of all the taxi options, to use a regulated taxi hailed through an app like MyTaxi where the journey is mapped, logged, and recorded.

Ridesharing apps like Uber have made taxi's think more about leveraging technology to increase passenger safety. Let me put it this way, would a mytaxi app be used as much if Uber or Lyft had not made the idea of it mainstream?

Given that MyTaxi, aka Hailo, launched in Ireland at least 2 years prior to Uber, I can answer "yes" to that with absolute certainty.

The last point is immaterial to what you originally said. In the Irish context, Hailo was their introduction to the whole thing. Uber had nothing to do with its widespread adoption here.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The last point is immaterial to what you originally said. In the Irish context, Hailo was their introduction to the whole thing. Uber had nothing to do with its widespread adoption here.

Apart from being the world leaders in app based taxi/ride-sharing ordering, nothing at all.
:pac:

MJohnston wrote: »

I made no argument one way or the other about the current licensing requirements or costs. I simply said that they exist, and Uber must follow them too, otherwise they create illegally unfair competition in the marketplace.

Yes, we are so concerned with unfair competition, you have no problem or comment to make on unfair regulation with makes the entire industry unfair from the get go. Funny that.

It's an educated assumption - you claim that an app that tracks journeys and logs everything is safer than not having an app, I agree with that.

An assumption does not make it true or correct.

You also say that it costs €6300 to get a taxi license, which in and of itself is a barrier to becoming a taxi driver, and it seems to me that this cannot be less safe than a situation where you're getting into a car with a person who has paid 0 to become an Uber driver (note that I'm not saying that cost barrier makes things completely safe, just at least equally safe, or perhaps even slightly more safe, than without).

The cost barrier is just that, a barrier. It is well known that for years, Dublin gangs used taxi's to launder their drug money. Having no barrier or a reasonable barrier of say €100 to cover administration, would just be as safe as a barrier of €100,000. Remember the pre-deregulation days of the 90's. Taxi drivers gave us that yarn as well, stating that people wouldn't use these newer taxi drivers as they would be 'all sorts of people' (a sly dig of non nationals, Irish Taxi drivers are quite racist in my experience). The issue should be centered about proper background checks, not stupid random fees on who can afford to be a taxi driver.

That's all well and good, but you specifically asked "would a mytaxi app be used as much if Uber or Lyft had not made the idea of it mainstream".

My response is simply that Uber did not make the idea mainstream in Ireland, because a lot of people have still not now even heard of Uber long after it has launched here, and certainly most had never heard of it before it launched.

Ireland is a small market, hence why Uber probably could not have been bothered to come here earlier. Ireland also deregulated the taxi industry many years ago, so although the €6,300 fee is stupid and unwarranted it is not as bad as those elsewhere like in NY, or London or Sydney, where a taxi licences costs up to $500,000. These were the markets that Uber wanted to crack and crack they did.

However, my main point was that innovation originated by the likes of Uber, Lyft and developers in myTaxi/Halio. The Irish taxi industry just piggy backed on this.

Put it another way, was the NTA or the Irish Taxi Federation or whomever they are called involved back in 2009 or 2010 in developing an app like myTaxi or Halio?

This just seems like a rant - I'm not in the taxi industry whatsoever, nor do I particularly like taxis, but I can only say what I see from the outside.

Fine, but don't give them credit for innovating in their industry when it was forced on them by the PD's in the 2000 and spoon feed to them by the tech revolution.

Manner of the old heads are still crying about it.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/taxi-drivers-face-multimillion-euro-legal-bill-in-deregulation-case-1.2506103

markodaly wrote: »

Which means you need to have a wheelchair accessible car to avail of this taxi license, you left out that bit. Such a car would cost well north of 20,000 euro if not more.

The reason the restriction was introduced is that the number of wheelchair accessible taxis in Ireland fell by 40% since 2008.

In case you hadn't noticed the number of people in wheelchairs is increasing. Should Uber drivers be allowed discriminate against people in wheelchairs?

howiya wrote: »

The reason the restriction was introduced is that the number of wheelchair accessible taxis in Ireland fell by 40% since 2008.

In case you hadn't noticed the number of people in wheelchairs is increasing. Should Uber drivers be allowed discriminate against people in wheelchairs?

So, how is restricting would be Taxi drivers from driving a normal car help wheelchair users. Is there data available that shows us the optimal number of wheel chair accesible taxis? Maybe that 40% drop was warranted?

Uber had this covered as well by the way.
https://www.uber.com/en-IE/ride/uberwav/

markodaly wrote: »

Yes, we are so concerned with unfair competition, you have no problem or comment to make on unfair regulation with makes the entire industry unfair from the get go. Funny that.




An assumption does not make it true or correct.



The cost barrier is just that, a barrier. It is well known that for years, Dublin gangs used taxi's to launder their drug money. Having no barrier or a reasonable barrier of say €100 to cover administration, would just be as safe as a barrier of €100,000. Remember the pre-deregulation days of the 90's. Taxi drivers gave us that yarn as well, stating that people wouldn't use these newer taxi drivers as they would be 'all sorts of people' (a sly dig of non nationals, Irish Taxi drivers are quite racist in my experience). The issue should be centered about proper background checks, not stupid random fees on who can afford to be a taxi driver.





Ireland is a small market, hence why Uber probably could not have been bothered to come here earlier. Ireland also deregulated the taxi industry many years ago, so although the €6,300 fee is stupid and unwarranted it is not as bad as those elsewhere like in NY, or London or Sydney, where a taxi licences costs up to $500,000. These were the markets that Uber wanted to crack and crack they did.

However, my main point was that innovation originated by the likes of Uber, Lyft and developers in myTaxi/Halio. The Irish taxi industry just piggy backed on this.

Put it another way, was the NTA or the Irish Taxi Federation or whomever they are called involved back in 2009 or 2010 in developing an app like myTaxi or Halio?




Fine, but don't give them credit for innovating in their industry when it was forced on them by the PD's in the 2000 and spoon feed to them by the tech revolution.

Manner of the old heads are still crying about it.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/taxi-drivers-face-multimillion-euro-legal-bill-in-deregulation-case-1.2506103

You're just moving the goalposts on every single point here. I'll leave to argue with yourself, as I smell some vested interests/bitterness here that I can't be arsed with.

stonebob wrote: »

Just back from London where I used Airbnb and Uber with great success......Uber was half the price of a taxi and there seemed to be one around every corner ..everyone loves them ..I know there's an argument about regulation of drivers but there's a lot of dodgy taxi drivers too just read the papers ...the drivers were polite ..spotless cars..and they don't tap on..

I used them to Malaysia, 3 people 6km 25c. It’s business model is s race to the bottom. Half the price of taxis , with similar overheads and about 30% of the fate going to UBER. There is no way a driver could support a family.

howiya wrote: »

Uber doesn't have this covered since any uberwav you get in Ireland will also be a taxi. But sure let's pretend they are the ones responsible.

If you can't see how making new entrants buy a wheelchair accessible vehicle over a normal vehicle would help wheelchair users then I don't know how to explain it any clearer.

I doubt the NTA would have introduced the restriction or the grant aid to help people buy wheelchair accessible vehicles if they didn't have data to support their policy.

You give too much credence to the NTA then. The NTA are a public body, would they not release this data or maybe they have no data to begin with.

markodaly wrote: »

You give too much credence to the NTA then. The NTA are a public body, would they not release this data or maybe they have no data to begin with.

As they are a public body you can send them a FOI request if you want the data.

How would they not have data? They licence each taxi, so they know whether a vehicle is wheelchair accessible or not. They know how many taxis are licensed. Simple percentage calculation.

Then there's this survey we do called a census which tells public bodies information about the country's population.

I don't think I'm giving the NTA too much credence at all. It's not rocket science.

Talking of the cost of vehicles - do Uber drivers not have to buy them too?

usernamegoes wrote: »

Uber insure the trips. You are spreading a myth. Even if they didn't I'd have no problem with a law requiring them to insure the trip.

Unless Uber is checking that their drivers and their cars are certified to operate as PSV's then such insurance will be null and void in Ireland.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so how are you covered for the rest of the time?, not working etc because your insurance policy won't cover you full stop if you are at any point using the vehicle for reward...

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Unless Uber is checking that their drivers and their cars are certified to operate as PSV's then such insurance will be null and void in Ireland.

Under the current framework, but we are suggesting it should be changed. Also Many of us have no problem with requiring licensing (albeit I don't know what good it does) but such license should not have unreasonable barriers to entry.

Under a framework like that you could require uber have insurance covering the trips (if the driver's insurance doesn't).

Some observations.

#1 I don't know where this sense of entitlement is coming from that if you drive you should make enough to support a family. I use Uber/Lyft extensively abroad and none of the drivers I've spoken to use it as their sole income. They all have "day jobs" and are driving to top-up their earnings. Many are students and it's a great way to pay for college.

#2 Some people prefer taxis under the current system, and that's fine. Allowing UberX/Lyft type services means more choice, but don't deny us who would like to use Uber that choice... you can still use your taxi.

#3 Uber/Lyft vetting does exist. There are a pile of taxi drivers with criminal records, not to mention those who have never sat a driving test (due to various amnesties) on our roads. These would not be allowed drive for Uber.

#4 Rural transport has been hammered by changes to the law. A decade ago we had hackneys, now we have none. Those hackey drivers who made feck all in a week in rural villages have not gone for taxi licences as they're too expensive. With Uber etc, people in rural communities would have a new sense of freedom as their neighbours could get out and drive instead of staying in watching the Late Late Show.

There are other benefits too, they're just a few.