Uber

makeorbrake

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Though interestingly enough - that's not what you wrote - you wrote "(at any scale)" not global, but sure if you keep shifting those goalposts, you'll score eventually.

And if you keep engaging in semantics, that will really add to the quality of the discussion...NOT.

Did it ever occur to you that 'global' would implicate 'scale'? :rolleyes:

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

Did you make that up or do you have anything factual to back it up?

It's his opinion - which he's more than entitled to have. I also believe that the regulator is appeasing taxi drivers - and there are others here who share that very same opinion.

Your utterances here are not doing much to change that opinion - quite the opposite with the siege mentality.

AndrewJRenko

makeorbrake wrote: »

It's his opinion - which he's more than entitled to have. I also believe that the regulator is appeasing taxi drivers - and there are others here who share that very same opinion.

Indeed, he is entitled to his opinion. It's apparent that those who share that very same opinion have no professional experience of
a) the Regulator
b) taxi drivers.

markodaly wrote: »

It boils down to this anyway on the question of ride-sharing or driving a taxi. Why does the NTA limit the number of taxi licenses and why does one need to spend €6,300 for a vehicle license on top of your tests and insurance, oh and guess what, these licenses are not available right now, so I guess you are $hit out of luck.

To ensure that wheelchair users have some small chance of getting a taxi to work, or to their concert or to their job interview.

makeorbrake wrote: »

And if you keep engaging in semantics, that will really add to the quality of the discussion...NOT.

Did it ever occur to you that 'global' would implicate 'scale'?

It certainly never occurred to me that 'any scale' = 'global'.

makeorbrake

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Indeed, he is entitled to his opinion. It's apparent that those who share that very same opinion have no professional experience of
a) the Regulator
b) taxi drivers.

Ok, and your professional experience here is what precisely?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

To ensure that wheelchair users have some small chance of getting a taxi to work, or to their concert or to their job interview.

And you can find no way where both ride sharing and WAV's can be accommodated? (or more accurately, you don't want there to be such an accommodation what with your ideological views).

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It certainly never occurred to me that 'any scale' = 'global'.

How embarrassing for you....and also embarrassing for you that you'd try and contest the reality that Uber is synonymous with ride sharing the world over.

AndrewJRenko

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ok, and your professional experience here is what precisely?

What do you want precisely? My LinkedIn page?


Of course you're not going to get precise details on an anonymous forum. I did have dealings with the regulator and with taxi drivers for a couple of years some years back.

makeorbrake wrote: »

And you can find no way where both ride sharing and WAV's can be accommodated?

Or more accurately, YOU can find no way where both ride sharing and WAVs can be accommodated, without resulting increased traffic/emissions and reducing safety for passengers.

makeorbrake wrote: »

How embarrassing for you....and also embarrassing for you

Sure I'm only morto over my strange habit of taking words at their meaning.

makeorbrake wrote: »

contest the reality that Uber is synonymous with ride sharing the world over.

And once again, you shift the goalposts to another scenario.

makeorbrake

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What do you want precisely? My LinkedIn page?

Of course you're not going to get precise details on an anonymous forum. I did have dealings with the regulator and with taxi drivers for a couple of years some years back.

Time and again, we've seen attempts by you and others here to try and sully the opinions and views of others in this way (simply because its a point of view that you bitterly detest).

That's what's going on with that.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Or more accurately, YOU can find no way where both ride sharing and WAVs can be accommodated, without resulting increased traffic/emissions and reducing safety for passengers.

Hilarious. That's not at all true. I thought it absurd to even suggest that we can only have one and not the other. Yet, when pressed, I presented relevant options that would solve that. Key amongst them? The consideration that if this is what people want, we get every self-interested taxi-man off the roads. That will certainly clear some road space.

The madness of it? To consider that something will add so much more value that by your own admission, it will increase traffic on the streets as a side effect. That means it would be enabling far more people. That admission from your side of the discussion shows that all this nonsense that was talked about - about professional drivers and better standards is complete and utter nonsense.

As regards additional traffic, of course there are ways to tackle that. Pooling could be incentivised. The ability of anyone to drive into the city at rush hour as a single occupant (across the board) could be penalised. That's just off the top of my head.

The fact is that you (and others here) don't even want to investigate such options either out of self interest or ideological reasons.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Sure I'm only morto over my strange habit of taking words at their meaning.

And once again, you shift the goalposts to another scenario.

complete and utter nonsense.

AndrewJRenko

makeorbrake wrote: »

Time and again, we've seen attempts by you and others here to try and sully the opinions and views of others in this way (simply because its a point of view that you bitterly detest).

That's what's going on with that.

Is it really a shock to you to think that someone has has some professional experience in an area might be able to talk more knowledgably about the area than someone who hasn't?



I don't know what you do for living, but let's imagine that we have an in-depth discussion here about whatever you do. Do you really think that I, or any outsider, will be able to contribute with the same depth and value as you, someone who lives this issue for your professional life?

makeorbrake wrote: »

Hilarious. That's not at all true. I thought it absurd to even suggest that we can only have one and not the other. Yet, when pressed, I presented relevant options that would solve that. Key amongst them? The consideration that if this is what people want, we get every self-interested taxi-man off the roads. That will certainly clear some road space.

The madness of it? To consider that something will add so much more value that by your own admission, it will increase traffic on the streets as a side effect. That means it would be enabling far more people. That admission from your side of the discussion shows that all this nonsense that was talked about - about professional drivers and better standards is complete and utter nonsense.

As regards additional traffic, of course there are ways to tackle that. Pooling could be incentivised. The ability of anyone to drive into the city at rush hour as a single occupant (across the board) could be penalised. That's just off the top of my head.

The fact is that you (and others here) don't even want to investigate such options either out of self interest or ideological reasons.

Restrictions on single occupant cars are almost certainly going to happen, sooner or later, regardless of any taxi changes. I've no idea why you'd be expecting me to investigate your proposals. They're your proposals - why don't you investigate them and come up with something concrete?

makeorbrake wrote: »

complete and utter nonsense.

Oh well, that's me told I suppose.

makeorbrake

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Is it really a shock to you to think that someone has has some professional experience in an area might be able to talk more knowledgably about the area than someone who hasn't?

I don't know what you do for living, but let's imagine that we have an in-depth discussion here about whatever you do. Do you really think that I, or any outsider, will be able to contribute with the same depth and value as you, someone who lives this issue for your professional life?

I'm pretty confident that the shoe would be on the other foot if such an unqualified view (sic) supported your world view.

Other than that, there is no need for a PhD in taxi-ometry to hold an informed discussion on the subject.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Restrictions on single occupant cars are almost certainly going to happen, sooner or later, regardless of any taxi changes.

Great. And if that creates sufficent space on our streets, I'm sure you will be the first calling for ride sharing services, right?:rolleyes:

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I've no idea why you'd be expecting me to investigate your proposals. They're your proposals - why don't you investigate them and come up with something concrete?

I didn't suggest you investigate "MY" proposals. I suggested that people could be forthcoming in solving the problem with their own suggestions - aside from blocking ride sharing services.

And everyone who reads through this knows why - because blocking services like uber is in keeping with either self-interest or a certain wayward ideology.

n97 mini

[Deleted User] wrote: »

For one thing, the regulator sets the fare structure and protects the consumer from price gouging or "surge pricing" which is a well known and despised feature of Uber

That's one of the more innovative things about Uber. It encourages more drivers to work when there's a sudden demand, like at closing time, or after a concert. I've seen it go as high as 6x.

On the consumer end it's a bit like booking a flight. You can go at short notice during high demand for big bucks, or you can wait a while for prices to drop down. Surges in my experience usually last less than an hour, and if you're savvy and you know one is coming you can get in beforehand at 1x or 1.1x.

Btw I should add that taxis here are permanently equivalent to between a 2x and 3x surge on Uber, depending on where you are.

n97 mini

n97 mini wrote: »

That's one of the more innovative things about Uber. It encourages more drivers to work when there's a sudden demand, like at closing time, or after a concert. I've seen it go as high as 6x.

On the consumer end it's a bit like booking a flight. You can go at short notice during high demand for big bucks, or you can wait a while for prices to drop down. Surges in my experience usually last less than an hour, and if you're savvy and you know one is coming you can get in beforehand at 1x or 1.1x.

Btw I should add that taxis here are permanently equivalent to between a 2x and 3x surge on Uber, depending on where you are.

2 things, personally I would prefer knowing that regardless, the price will all be the set price

2nd, regarding the bolded bit, that's an artificially low price enabled by Uber blowing through billions in investor money to subsidise the price to a large extent. Now that they are a publicly traded company I don't see that situation lasting

n97 mini

[Deleted User] wrote: »

2 things, personally I would prefer knowing that regardless, the price will all be the set price

2nd, regarding the bolded bit, that's an artificially low price enabled by Uber blowing through billions in investor money to subsidise the price to a large extent. Now that they are a publicly traded company I don't see that situation lasting

About your first point, it's totally transparent in the app. You can see your journey cost before you book a ride. You can see the surge multiplier too (normally 1x, ie no surge). If you don't like the surge level, do what I do: have another pint and wait for it to drop back.

Your second point. I'm not an investor. Are you? Who gives a flying feck. Make hay while the sun shines!

makeorbrake

n97 mini wrote: »

About your first point, it's totally transparent in the app. You can see your journey cost before you book a ride. You can see the surge multiplier too (normally 1x, ie no surge). If you don't like the surge level, do what I do: have another pint and wait for it to drop back.

Or you can do what I do out here and go with a platform that doesn't use surge pricing. But for that to happen in Ireland, it starts with enabling a single platform in the first instance rather than sticking a jackboot on it.

n97 mini wrote: »

Your second point. I'm not an investor. Are you? Who gives a flying feck. Make hay while the sun shines!

Whilst Uber is dealing in silly money, I don't think these guys think for a second that it ends when the venture capital or IPO money dries up. Otherwise, they wouldn't drone on about it.

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

Did you make that up or do you have anything factual to back it up?

Who benefits from the status quo?

Certainly not new entrants to the industry or consumers.

markodaly

markodaly wrote: »

Who benefits from the status quo?

Certainly not new entrants to the industry or consumers.

So just made it up and have no evidence to back it up, ok, thanks for the clarification

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

So just made it up and have no evidence to back it up, ok, thanks for the clarification

He made up his own opinion? How very dare he.:rolleyes:


The regulator hasn't enabled ride sharing because the regulator knows they'd have to deal with a lot of commotion from taxi drivers and there would be work involved in bedding down regulation with ride sharing to boot. Far easier to stifle it - and push it back for someone else to deal with some time in the future. In the meantime, back to the I.T. crossword and collecting that public service salary.

markodaly

Deleted User wrote: »

So just made it up and have no evidence to back it up, ok, thanks for the clarification

There is plenty of research and evidence about, regarding market economics and artificial barriers of entry to such a market.

Here is an OECD policy roundtable document debating that point which includes examples of the Taxi industry in demonstrating from an economic point of view, the impact on consumers, the effect on competition and demonstrating the negative impacts regards price to the benefit of those already in the market.

https://www.oecd.org/regreform/sectors/36344429.pdf

You are most welcome.

markodaly

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

To ensure that wheelchair users have some small chance of getting a taxi to work, or to their concert or to their job interview.

Really? How many wheelchair users are there in Ireland as a matter of interest?

The NTA slap on a €6,300 figure for a vehicle license so that wheelchair users can get a taxi?

Spook_ie

markodaly wrote: »

There is plenty of research and evidence about, regarding market economics and artificial barriers of entry to such a market.

Here is an OECD policy roundtable document debating that point which includes examples of the Taxi industry in demonstrating from an economic point of view, the impact on consumers, the effect on competition and demonstrating the negative impacts regards price to the benefit of those already in the market.

https://www.oecd.org/regreform/sectors/36344429.pdf

You are most welcome.

14 years ago, anything recent

In some cases government regulations can create unnecessary barriers to entry. Competition advocacy
in the form of recommendations on amendments to government regulation can therefore assist. In some
cases both the cost of the barrier and the cost of lowering the barrier may be small but the benefits in
enhanced competition may be large. An example of a potential barrier to entry that is often quoted in the
academic literature and was the subject of a market study in the UK is taxi licensing.16 In this case while
the requirement to obtain a license could be considered a barrier to entry under some definitions it can also
generate benefits in terms of health and safety considerations. However it is also true that simple numerical
restrictions on the number of licenses that can be issued can harm competition by artificially restricting
supply. The OFT found that abolition of such numerical restrictions would be relatively costless, except of
course to the taxi drivers who lose the capitalised value of their rents.

The only bit relevant to taxi deregulation I see is that bit, neither of which is present in the Irish Taxi model since 2000, there is no limit to the number of licenses, there is no intrinsic value to the license ( as they are no longer effectively transferable ) the only barrier is that the NTA and the government have said THEY want to increase the percentage of WAVs. (See previous posts giving https://www.oireachtas.ie/ replies to the questions raised.

Spook_ie

markodaly wrote: »

Really? How many wheelchair users are there in Ireland as a matter of interest?

The NTA slap on a €6,300 figure for a vehicle license so that wheelchair users can get a taxi?

According to this guy 40000 in 2014
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/john-horrigan-is-giving-independence-to-wheelchair-users-1.2035735

“There are 40,000 wheelchair users in Ireland alone and my potential market across the UK, Europe and US is 14.5 million people. This market demands more innovation in assistive living products.”

The cost of a WAV license is €150, the difference between the costs wasn't generating enough WAVs being put on the road. Thjerefore removing the 6.5k option was a sound idea.
To be fair they could have just put up the 6.5k fee to 10-12k and probably had a similar effect, but people would still be moaning about barriers.

AndrewJRenko

makeorbrake wrote: »

:


The regulator hasn't enabled ride sharing because the regulator knows they'd have to deal with a lot of commotion from taxi drivers and there would be work involved in bedding down regulation with ride sharing to boot. Far easier to stifle it - and push it back for someone else to deal with some time in the future. In the meantime, back to the I.T. crossword and collecting that public service salary.

Just to be clear - your view on the Regulator's motivation is purely speculative, and not based on any experience with the regulator, right?

makeorbrake

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Just to be clear - your view on the Regulator's motivation is purely speculative, and not based on any experience with the regulator, right?

You want me to have the regulator sign a statement to that effect (and even then, you still wouldn't be satisfied). It's my opinion and it's an opinion shared by a number of others here. I don't give a fiddlers if you don't respect that or believe it (or more accurately, your ideology conveniently aligns with not considering it as a possibility...and for others here, their self interest).

We can keep going back and forth over these same points or agree to disagree. Whichever you prefer.

makeorbrake

Posted on twitter in the last 24 hours:

hxxps://twitter.com/ChrisPacia/status/1145988168799461376

"Seriously **** the government run taxi cartels. Just had two driver cancel on me using their "app" so they could pick up other customers. 45 mins of waiting an still no taxi. They drive Uber out of the city so they can provide this **** service."

Another example of the consumer being screwed at the behest of the ideologically wayward and selfish interests.

markodaly

Spook_ie wrote: »

According to this guy 40000 in 2014
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/john-horrigan-is-giving-independence-to-wheelchair-users-1.2035735

So, less than 1% of the population. We should order the entire taxi industry and the barrier of entry into it, because of 1% of the population?

The cost of a WAV license is €150, the difference between the costs wasn't generating enough WAVs being put on the road. Thjerefore removing the 6.5k option was a sound idea.
To be fair they could have just put up the 6.5k fee to 10-12k and probably had a similar effect, but people would still be moaning about barriers.

The €6,300 fee is an arbitrary fee chosen by the NTA, for reasons unknown, and guess what, these are not even available anyway. It could be €100k, it doesn't matter as you cannot get one currently.

The WAV license is cheap of course, but then you have to spend extra money to get a wheelchair accessible taxi, to service less than 1% of the population.

I see people queueing up and banging down the doors of the NTA office to get such a license and avail of this 'offer'.

As I said and Ill say it again. The current setup is there to benefit the existing taxi drivers, not the consumer or new entries into the industry.
At least be honest about this.

end of the road

markodaly wrote: »

So, less than 1% of the population. We should order the entire taxi industry and the barrier of entry into it, because of 1% of the population?

yes . as that 1% are the most likely to rely on public transport.

markodaly wrote: »

The €6,300 fee is an arbitrary fee chosen by the NTA, for reasons unknown, and guess what, these are not even available anyway. It could be €100k, it doesn't matter as you cannot get one currently.

The WAV license is cheap of course, but then you have to spend extra money to get a wheelchair accessible taxi, to service less than 1% of the population.

I see people queueing up and banging down the doors of the NTA office to get such a license and avail of this 'offer'.

As I said and Ill say it again. The current setup is there to benefit the existing taxi drivers, not the consumer or new entries into the industry. At least be honest about this.

it is there to insure a healthy, vibrant, customer friendly and focused industry.

makeorbrake

markodaly wrote: »

At least be honest about this.

Good luck with that endeavor!

makeorbrake

end of the road wrote: »

it is there to insure a healthy, vibrant, customer friendly and focused industry.

And yet if it is all of those things, what are you afraid of? Why would it be wiped from the face of the earth in the event of ride sharing being made available?

end of the road

makeorbrake wrote: »

And yet if it is all of those things, what are you afraid of? Why would it be wiped from the face of the earth in the event of ride sharing being made available?

ride sharing is available. the vehicles and operators operating such services are simply held to a high standard.

Spook_ie

markodaly wrote: »

So, less than 1% of the population. We should order the entire taxi industry and the barrier of entry into it, because of 1% of the population?



The €6,300 fee is an arbitrary fee chosen by the NTA, for reasons unknown, and guess what, these are not even available anyway. It could be €100k, it doesn't matter as you cannot get one currently.

The WAV license is cheap of course, but then you have to spend extra money to get a wheelchair accessible taxi, to service less than 1% of the population.

I see people queueing up and banging down the doors of the NTA office to get such a license and avail of this 'offer'.

As I said and Ill say it again. The current setup is there to benefit the existing taxi drivers, not the consumer or new entries into the industry.
At least be honest about this.

Well here's hoping you or anyone close to you never suffers a debilitating injury or illness and become one of the 1%, pretty sure you'd be changing your tune PDQ.

makeorbrake

end of the road wrote: »

ride sharing is available. the vehicles and operators operating such services are simply held to a high standard.

Yeah, I mean I like to flaunt a sense of humour as much as the next guy.

...but fair dues, yer hilarious.

n97 mini

makeorbrake wrote: »

Posted on twitter in the last 24 hours:

hxxps://twitter.com/ChrisPacia/status/1145988168799461376

"Seriously **** the government run taxi cartels. Just had two driver cancel on me using their "app" so they could pick up other customers. 45 mins of waiting an still no taxi. They drive Uber out of the city so they can provide this **** service."

Another example of the consumer being screwed at the behest of the ideologically wayward and selfish interests.

Don't get annoyed, get the bus! Eventually taxis will go the way of the dinosaurs. Can't wait for the 24/7 bus routes to start in Dublin, like they have in Cork.

Ironically if we had Uber, the taxpayer wouldn't need to subsidise bus routes, but here we are!