Uber

MJohnston

Are you really this naive about Uber flouting regulations? I linked you to a whole Wikipedia article about it.

makeorbrake

MJohnston wrote: »

Are you really this naive about Uber flouting regulations? I linked you to a whole Wikipedia article about it.

Don't be an obnoxious knob. I simply asked someone what the main cost saving elements were in terms of regulations. If you don't want to answer that, then don't - but don't come on here with posts that don't advance the discussion in any way, shape or form.

strandroad

makeorbrake wrote: »

What are the main cost-saving elements for them in terms of regulations?

License cost for one, commercial insurance, fleet standards. Uber only enforce whatever they are forced to in their localities and some do not force them to do anything. Some provincial Ubers abroad you'd be wary to get into they are so clapped out.

As regards on-boarding people, sure they need plenty of VC money in that race. I already find that the uber algorithm has to be watched in the market I'm in - and I always check with cabify to get the correctly priced fare.

Sure; but it's these subsidised fares that make them more attractive than taxis and not their inherent goodness.

Other than that, I like the idea that someone can decide to go out for a few hours and work uber as and when it suits them. There's a lot of value in that for people.

It does makes sense, but in environments where there is plenty of road space and no public transport. Where the traffic is bad already you're not adding any value. Irish business case for Uber would be delivering locals home from their rural pubs perhaps.

It makes more sense to me that they would spend much less time 'driving around' than a taxi. Perhaps its the market i'm in, but every uber i use here is accepting their next job the minute I get out of the car.

Again looks the maps is all that I can say to convince you otherwise. These maps are crawling with Ubers...

MJohnston

makeorbrake wrote: »

Don't be an obnoxious knob. I simply asked someone what the main cost saving elements were in terms of regulations. If you don't want to answer that, then don't - but don't come on here with posts that don't advance the discussion in any way, shape or form.

Ah I see, you're one of those posters. Look, this Wikipedia page is full of examples of them cutting corners to save money:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uber_protests_and_legal_actions

If you don't think that answers your question, I don't know what to say. Here's an overview:

• underpaying drivers (they had to pay out $20 million because of this)
• coding their app to avoid providing service to officials in cities where it was banned (and continuing to provide service to anyone else)
• getting Uber employees to deliberately waste the time of drivers using competitor apps
• their "dynamic pricing" model which frequently rips off passengers (this is one area where regulation is 100% protecting customers)
• classifying Uber drivers as 'independent contractors' to avoid having to treat them as employees (with pesky things like "minimum wage" not applying)
• using the complexity of the app to defraud drivers and passengers by presenting longer routes at booking time than are actually necessary, but still charging for that longer route
• skipping background checks, or doing them inadequately, or overlooking violations, for drivers (they had to pay out $8.9 million in Colorado for this)
• routing their profits through offshore companies (something taxi drivers would find extremely difficult to do)

And this is just within the United States! In Europe they were also skipping paying the kinds of license fees that legit taxis have to pay, and trying to ignore basic taxi regulations like "having insurance".



If you can point me to which of these Uber policies are good for customers, I'd love to know them.

Spook_ie

Anything that's cheaper must be good for the customer, look at the number of people who buy their stuff from the 2 euro shop.

usernamegoes

I have no problem allowing an Uber-style model here, personally I'd be happy with the vetting etc being done by the company, but if it makes people feel better require them to get a taxi or hackney licence. However, change the rules that getting such a license only costs the administration fees and other artificial barriers to entry like requiring new ones to have wheelchair accessibility.

You could also require the company to have group insurance to cover issues arising on trips they arrange.

Bray Head

Uber rides are not massively subsidised by investors.

There are about four billion Uber rides per year. Uber's annual losses in 2017 were $4.5 billion.

So maybe a subsidy of about a dollar a ride.

I think Uber could sustainably increase prices by a dollar a ride tomorrow and retain market share.


They are still in start-up mode however, so are in the business of building market share. They are also spending huge amounts on R&D that a mature company does not need to.



As a company, they basically want to become a transport solution - probably involving self-driving cars and trucks too.

They are a lot more than just replacing taxis.

Bray Head

MJohnston wrote: »

[*]their "dynamic pricing" model which frequently rips off passengers (this is one area where regulation is 100% protecting customers)

Dynamic pricing means that customers who don't really need to really travel at a peak time don't travel.

And that customers that really need to travel, and can afford do, can travel.

It also brings drivers out on the street when they are most needed.


All sorts of businesses - including airlines and hotels - use dynamic pricing and no one gives it a second thought.

Dynamic pricing already kind of exists with the higher regulated prices that are charged during evenings and Sunday.

Stephen15

As far I'm concerned Uber won't do anything to reduce traffic congestion in fact would likely make it even worse as people who would otherwise use public transport may see Uber as a viable alternative especially if they don't own a car as it has done in some cities.

Bray Head

Stephen15 wrote: »

As far I'm concerned Uber won't do anything to reduce traffic congestion in fact would likely make it even worse as people who would otherwise use public transport may see Uber as a viable alternative especially if they don't own a car as it has done in some cities.

Actually a lot of my journeys involve collecting/dropping kids and grandparents who don't drive.

I have to go from A (where I live) where the real journey is B to C, and then I have to get back to A again.

With Uber (especially if self-driving cars come in) journeys are generally only B to C. This should on balance reduce the number of journeys.

punisher5112

strandroad wrote: »

Why do you think that Uber, a famously lax company will provide any of this?

If a regulated taxi breaks the rules they can lose their license. If a Uber driver breaks the rules they'll be dumped from the app that's all.

Uber took off abroad where there were no decent taxis and no apps/card payments. In Dublin the last thing we need is rando cars clogging the city cruising for business.

Read again there ......


Where did I say any of what you just did.

I'm talking about any such service hence it shouldn't be allowed and to be honest most actual taxis out there shouldn't be either.

punisher5112

strandroad wrote: »

Why do you think that Uber, a famously lax company will provide any of this?

If a regulated taxi breaks the rules they can lose their license. If a Uber driver breaks the rules they'll be dumped from the app that's all.

Uber took off abroad where there were no decent taxis and no apps/card payments. In Dublin the last thing we need is rando cars clogging the city cruising for business.

Read again there ......


Where did I say any of what you just did.

I'm talking about any such service hence it shouldn't be allowed and to be honest most actual taxis out there shouldn't be either.

Stephen15

Bray Head wrote: »

Actually a lot of my journeys involve collecting/dropping kids and grandparents who don't drive.

I have to go from A (where I live) where the real journey is B to C, and then I have to get back to A again.

With Uber (especially if self-driving cars come in) journeys are generally only B to C. This should on balance reduce the number of journeys.

I think we'll waiting a while longer before self driving cars fully come in as the norm. It's a bridge that can be crossed when we come to it. Even if self driving vehicles become a reality which they won't anytime soon public transport should still be prioritised.

Bray Head

Stephen15 wrote: »

I think we'll waiting a while longer before self driving cars fully come in as the norm. It's a bridge that can be crossed when we come to it. Even if self driving vehicles become a reality which they won't anytime soon public transport should still be prioritised.

My point still stands without self-driving cars.

Stephen15

Bray Head wrote: »

My point still stands without self-driving cars.

That may be the case but if Uber was allowed here many may find it a more attractive option than public transport which shouldn't be allowed.

strandroad

Bray Head wrote: »

Actually a lot of my journeys involve collecting/dropping kids and grandparents who don't drive.

I have to go from A (where I live) where the real journey is B to C, and then I have to get back to A again.

With Uber (especially if self-driving cars come in) journeys are generally only B to C. This should on balance reduce the number of journeys.

It might only be B to C for you, but the Uber car comes from their A to collect you and then goes to D to collect another passenger. All in all they are still on the road even if you're not on board.

Eric Cartman

Stephen15 wrote: »

That may be the case but if Uber was allowed here many may find it a more attractive option than public transport which shouldn't be allowed.

public transport is always the most unatractive option, its slow, smelly, full of junkies and doesnt bring you exactly to and from where you want to go. The only advantage it has is that its cheaper, Uber would encourage a lot of people off it.

Stephen15

Eric Cartman wrote: »

public transport is always the most unatractive option, its slow, smelly, full of junkies and doesnt bring you exactly to and from where you want to go. The only advantage it has is that its cheaper, Uber would encourage a lot of people off it.

Despite the fact a lot of those are misconceptions that are untrue. It's a sustainable transport method meaning it takes up a lot less road space, is more environmentally friendly and reduces congestion. We have bus lanes to improve journey times and Luas or Dart are often quicker than driving into the city centre. People will start to use Uber as an unsustainable alternative.

Bray Head

Stephen15 wrote: »

Despite the fact a lot of those are misconceptions that are untrue. It's a sustainable transport method meaning it takes up a lot less road space, is more environmentally friendly and reduces congestion. We have bus lanes to improve journey times and Luas or Dart are often quicker than driving into the city centre. People will start to use Uber as an unsustainable alternative.

Uber is in some ways complementary to public transport. Most train stations (inter-city as well as suburban) are really badly served by connecting buses.

Bray Head

strandroad wrote: »

It might only be B to C for you, but the Uber car comes from their A to collect you and then goes to D to collect another passenger. All in all they are still on the road even if you're not on board.

Literally 50% of my driving to pick up my teenager from a friend's house is superfluous to the main purpose.

Sure, the average Uber is not full all the time between rides and to/from the driver's residence. But it is much more efficiently used than 50%.

Stephen15

Bray Head wrote: »

Uber is in some ways complementary to public transport. Most train stations (inter-city as well as suburban) are really badly served by connecting buses.

And that can be done by improving bus access to railway stations bus connects to some degree should do that although that could create other capacity issues on trains particularly around peak times. That's almost like saying private cars are complementary to public transport due to park and rides.

Bray Head

Stephen15 wrote: »

And that can be done by improving bus access to railway stations

Of course it can. But in over 30 years of DART, Dublin Bus have failed abysmally at integrating with it.

Stephen15

Bray Head wrote: »

Of course it can. But in over 30 years of DART, Dublin Bus have failed abysmally at integrating with it.

True but just because we failed at something in the past doesn't mean we should just give up at it.

markodaly

MJohnston wrote: »

I don't think this is true at all. Contactless payments? Adopted very rapidly, including Apple/Google Pay. Taxi apps? Hailo was a massive success very quickly. Deliveroo has been a huge success too. Dublin Bikes became a global model for how to successfully implement a bike-rental scheme. Mobile phone networks in Ireland are far more generous with their data plans than a lot of other countries - go and compare with USA for example. Intercom? A massively successful Irish tech startup. Daft really changed how the property market worked in Ireland long before many other countries started doing similar things (when I lived in California in 2013 they were still using Craigslist for rentals ffs).

Many of these things you mention have been available for years and have been implemented in places like South Korea,Hong Kong, Singapore and China years before Ireland.
Hailo is an app the models itself on Uber, it is also British, not Irish.
Dublin Bikes? The same model has been in many a European city years before Dublin.
Mobile Data plans? I travel a lot to Asia for work. Mobile data plans from €25 for 80GB of 4G data. You won't get that in Ireland
There has been the odd few Irish startups that have done well, like Daft as you said or Stripe which is by far the more successful. Yet the tech scene in Ireland is dominated by multinationals, very little employment in homegrown startups.

Scratch the surface of Irish society and you will see that we are not as tech savvy as you think. The Gardai use Pulse, a system that makes dial-up seem innovative.
The hospital and education systems need billions in IT upgrades to bring our public services into the 21st century. We still do not teach ICT in the classroom, but religion and Irish remain in pride of place.

Just because we use contactless payments sometimes, does not mean we are tech savvy as a nation. Just think of the public perception of Uber and Airbnb? Usually very negative, without much foundation. We as a nation do not like change too much.

markodaly

What most people miss in ride-sharing, is why the Irish regulator does not issue a Taxi license to people who want it.

At the moment, you cannot get one, which basically makes it almost impossible for a new entrant to enter the market unless they a) buy a license of someone else or wait until the regulator out of the kindness of their hearts releases more licenses.

Also, last time I looked it cost the guts of €5,000 for said taxi plate. Why is it so expensive?

strandroad

markodaly wrote: »

Just because we use contactless payments sometimes, does not mean we are tech savvy as a nation. Just think of the public perception of Uber and Airbnb? Usually very negative, without much foundation. We as a nation do not like change too much.

Or perhaps we can see that they stop being reasonable very quickly when they scale up. The likes of Uber would be good for rural/small town part time drives but they only add problems when launched full time in cities neglecting the usual standards. Airbnb is great to rent a room or a studio off someone who's away but not great when it takes entire properties off the rental market without paying proper dues or when it ignores safety standards.

Technology is not inherently good and we shouldn't bow to it on principle, some projects are basically just temporary cheat codes when someone found a niche to exploit until the loophole is closed.

trellheim

et the tech scene in Ireland is dominated by multinationals, very little employment in homegrown startups.

this is not true. All the Irish techs are recruiting.

Losty Dublin

Bray Head wrote: »

Uber rides are not massively subsidised by investors.

There are about four billion Uber rides per year. Uber's annual losses in 2017 were $4.5 billion......

They are still in start-up mode however, so are in the business of building market share. They are also spending huge amounts on R&D that a mature company does not need to..

• Start up business.
  
• Losses of $4.5 billion.
  
• In a service industry that has existed for well over a century all over the world.

This would suggest that they really don't know what they are doing.

makeorbrake

Losty Dublin wrote: »

• Start up business.
  
• Losses of $4.5 billion.
  
• In a service industry that has existed for well over a century all over the world.

This would suggest that they really don't know what they are doing.

I doubt that is true - in fact, I'd wager they do know exactly what they're doing. However, if you are right and you dislike them, they're going to go away soon, right?

markodaly

trellheim wrote: »

this is not true. All the Irish techs are recruiting.

Can name on Irish tech company who employs more than 1000 people in Ireland?

Spook_ie

usernamegoes wrote: »

I have no problem allowing an Uber-style model here, personally I'd be happy with the vetting etc being done by the company, but if it makes people feel better require them to get a taxi or hackney licence. However, change the rules that getting such a license only costs the administration fees and other artificial barriers to entry like requiring new ones to have wheelchair accessibility.

You could also require the company to have group insurance to cover issues arising on trips they arrange.

It only costs €170 for a wheelchair accessible license, subject to age limits of vehicle, but you'd sooner allow the mobility disadvantaged of Ireland to go crawl wherever they'd like to get to, so that people can drive their family vehicles a few hours a day to put what few WAT's we have now off the road.

Spook_ie

markodaly wrote: »

What most people miss in ride-sharing, is why the Irish regulator does not issue a Taxi license to people who want it.

At the moment, you cannot get one, which basically makes it almost impossible for a new entrant to enter the market unless they a) buy a license of someone else or wait until the regulator out of the kindness of their hearts releases more licenses.

Also, last time I looked it cost the guts of €5,000 for said taxi plate. Why is it so expensive?

New entrants can get a WTA license for €170.
You can't buy a taxi plate off anyone anymore, unless they do a deal to transfer it on after their death.

Bray Head

markodaly wrote: »

Can name on Irish tech company who employs more than 1000 people in Ireland?

That's an absurd benchmark.

A firm employing 1,000 people in Ireland is absolutely massive. There are only 1.3m or so in the private sector workforce.

According to the CSO there are only 58 ICT firms employing more than 250 people in Ireland. That is for foreign and domestically owned. I would say no more than a dozen with more than a thousand staff.

Anyway, even successful Irish firms will eventually put their employees where their customers are. Kerry, Glanbia and Ryanair base the majority of their staff outside Ireland and have done for a long time.

Spook_ie

Losty Dublin wrote: »

• Start up business.
  
• Losses of $4.5 billion.
  
• In a service industry that has existed for well over a century all over the world.

This would suggest that they really don't know what they are doing.

Their real model is based on data acquisition, the same as myTaxi, all that valuable travel information is a sellable commodity why do you think Google were investing in it until they fell out.

But all three companies are still after the data, Uber, MyTaxi ( Daimler ) and Google

https://qz.com/880697/uber-is-finally-giving-the-public-a-glimpse-of-its-stunning-trove-of-transit-data/
https://www.siliconrepublic.com/companies/mytaxi-ceo-interview

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/07/travis-kalanick-on-google-uber-relationship.html

markodaly

Spook_ie wrote: »

New entrants can get a WTA license for €170.
You can't buy a taxi plate off anyone anymore, unless they do a deal to transfer it on after their death.

You mean a WheelChair Accessible Taxi license, so long as you spend €30,000 on a wheelchair accessible car. Bargain! LOL

markodaly

Bray Head wrote: »

That's an absurd benchmark.

A firm employing 1,000 people in Ireland is absolutely massive. There are only 1.3m or so in the private sector workforce.

According to the CSO there are only 58 ICT firms employing more than 250 people in Ireland. That is for foreign and domestically owned. I would say no more than a dozen with more than a thousand staff.

Anyway, even successful Irish firms will eventually put their employees where their customers are. Kerry, Glanbia and Ryanair base the majority of their staff outside Ireland and have done for a long time.

What is the largest Irish tech multinational in Ireland and how many do they employ?

makeorbrake

markodaly wrote: »

You mean a WheelChair Accessible Taxi license, so long as you spend €30,000 on a wheelchair accessible car. Bargain! LOL

Exactly. In which case, someone in some office somewhere can suggest anyone can get a license. But the reality is that this model shuts out uber. Why have a limited number of licenses?

The tech allows for someone to go out to work for a few hours on the fly. There's great flexibility in that. It's a more efficient use of peoples time and the available fleet of cars.

On this idea of ubers adding to traffic congestion, I don't accept that. A taxi is likely to go 'cruising' for work. An uber isn't. Whilst sitting in the car, there is usually somewhere to pull in temporarily. Other than that - and perhaps its symptomatic of how cost effective uber is where i'm at right now - I see uber's taking jobs immediately after they drop me off.

WhatsGoingOn2

markodaly wrote: »

What is the largest Irish tech multinational in Ireland and how many do they employ?

Probably Version 1?
Not sure how many employees they have, but it is over 1000

Losty Dublin

Spook_ie wrote: »

Their real model is based on data acquisition, the same as myTaxi, all that valuable travel information is a sellable commodity why do you think Google were investing in it until they fell out.

But all three companies are still after the data, Uber, MyTaxi ( Daimler ) and Google

https://qz.com/880697/uber-is-finally-giving-the-public-a-glimpse-of-its-stunning-trove-of-transit-data/
https://www.siliconrepublic.com/companies/mytaxi-ceo-interview

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/07/travis-kalanick-on-google-uber-relationship.html

Which backs up my point to some extent, Spook. Their true credentials and knowledge are not in the trade of getting people from A to B.

makeorbrake

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Which backs up my point to some extent, Spook. Their true credentials and knowledge are not in the trade of getting people from A to B.

They recognise the value of data - is all that means. They're still facilitators of getting people from point A to point B.

The high horse brigade

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Which backs up my point to some extent, Spook. Their true credentials and knowledge are not in the trade of getting people from A to B.

What's your point, data is valuable and is collected everywhere. The speed vans at the side of the road are collecting data and registrations. It's part of the world we live in today

end of the road

markodaly wrote: »

You mean a WheelChair Accessible Taxi license, so long as you spend €30,000 on a wheelchair accessible car. Bargain! LOL

that is what such cars cost brand new. that is just how it is . you could get a second hand one a lot cheaper i'm sure. if you want to be a taxi driver then that is the rules, and they should not be removed just to facilitate uber who can compete if they so wish.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Exactly. In which case, someone in some office somewhere can suggest anyone can get a license. But the reality is that this model shuts out uber. Why have a limited number of licenses?

The tech allows for someone to go out to work for a few hours on the fly. There's great flexibility in that. It's a more efficient use of peoples time and the available fleet of cars.

On this idea of ubers adding to traffic congestion, I don't accept that. A taxi is likely to go 'cruising' for work. An uber isn't. Whilst sitting in the car, there is usually somewhere to pull in temporarily. Other than that - and perhaps its symptomatic of how cost effective uber is where i'm at right now - I see uber's taking jobs immediately after they drop me off.

our model doesn't shut out uber. uber can come here and compete if they so wish. they are not stopped from doing so. they simply have to abide by the rules as set down, rules which exist for the benefit of the users of taxis. if they do not wish to come here, that is up to them, they are the only ones shutting themselves out.

makeorbrake

end of the road wrote: »

if you want to be a taxi driver then that is the rules, and they should not be removed just to facilitate uber who can compete if they so wish.
our model doesn't shut out uber. uber can come here and compete if they so wish. they are not stopped from doing so. they simply have to abide by the rules as set down, rules which exist for the benefit of the users of taxis. if they do not wish to come here, that is up to them, they are the only ones shutting themselves out.

So 'thems the rules'? BS. Simplify the system and allow better utilisation of peoples time and the existing car stock.

If the tech can facilitate someone who wants to go out and work for a few hours or switch on their availability to accept a fare if they're going on a particular journey, they should be allowed to do so. Protectionism is negative and ultimately, it never wins out.

makeorbrake

makeorbrake wrote: »

So 'thems the rules'? BS. Simplify the system and allow better utilisation of peoples time and the existing car stock.

If the tech can facilitate someone who wants to go out and work for a few hours or switch on their availability to accept a fare if they're going on a particular journey, they should be allowed to do so. Protectionism is negative and ultimately, it never wins out.

There is no protectionism, just minimum requirements which uber choose not to adhere to thereby excluding themselves from the market, simples

Unless of course, you are advocating that we drop the bare minimum standards that took a long time to get put in?

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

There is no protectionism, just minimum requirements which uber choose not to adhere to thereby excluding themselves from the market, simples

Unless of course, you are advocating that we drop the bare minimum standards that took a long time to get put in?

Of course I am. Tell me why someone can't be issued a license tomorrow for a minimal fee? Everyone knows the model facilitates people to go out and work as and when it suits. You can't do that if you restrict in this fashion. It's protectionism.

LuckyLloyd

There is no lack of taxi services in Dublin. As noted above, government policy needs to be focussed on getting cars (including taxis) off the streets over the next two decades.

makeorbrake

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

There is no lack of taxi services in Dublin. As noted above, government policy needs to be focussed on getting cars (including taxis) off the streets over the next two decades.

The law of supply and demand is the best regulation. If there's enough, there won't be more on the streets than are needed.

I understand your point but I don't think the consideration of car-sharing services has any bearing on it....although it could help when used on a opportunist basis - but current regulation prevents this.

Losty Dublin

makeorbrake wrote: »

They recognise the value of data - is all that means. They're still facilitators of getting people from point A to point B.

Illegally so in Ireland under their intended business model.

Bray Head

markodaly wrote: »

What is the largest Irish tech multinational in Ireland and how many do they employ?

I don't know.

You were making the rhetorical point so I guess it's your job to find out.

Basically all people who aren't Taxi drivers or related to them would prefer to have the choice of an Uber service with say 30 t0 40 percent cheaper fares.

Taxi drivers will come up with any argument to keep them out.

Choice is better.