Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: Taxi

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Southbank
    Posts
    9,531

    Default Taxi


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,721

    Default

    And here we have a witless govt that wants to restrict Uber.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,035

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by august View Post
    And here we have a witless govt that wants to restrict Uber.
    Many months back I wrote about the use of cars for sidelines. Nobody believed then that cars can be used as assets.
    The three laws of Kelonguni:

    Where there is kelong, there is guni.
    No kelong no guni.
    More kelong = more guni.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Southbank
    Posts
    9,531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by august View Post
    And here we have a witless govt that wants to restrict Uber.
    If you have follow closely what they say, Driverless Taxi is one they mention.

    There are lot of things going on behind the scene, for those who care get to know first.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Southbank
    Posts
    9,531

    Default

    SINGAPORE: The General Insurance Association of Singapore (GIA) has advised private owners who are using their cars to ferry passengers in return for a fare to get expanded motor insurance coverage.

    In a press statement on Tuesday (Oct 13), GIA said it wants to inform these motorists that their private insurance policies have a "limitation to use" condition, which restricts usage to "social, domestic and pleasure purposes".

    This means that if the vehicle is used for "hire or reward" purposes, the insurer is entitled to void the policy on account of breach of warranty, and the policyholder can be denied indemnity under the policy.

    Examples of such "hire and reward" usage would be motorists who use their private cars to provide transport services for a fee via ride-sharing apps like Uber and GrabCar.

    For example, in the event of an accident, the insurer will not be liable to pay for the damage to the vehicle insured, damage to third-party property, or bodily injury resulting from the accident.

    GIA also added that while "an insurer may deny indemnity to the policyholder on property damage claim, the Motor Vehicle (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act Cap 189 disallows an insurer from denying compensation to claimants for third party bodily injury".

    However, the same Act also has a provision in Section 8 (3) that allows the insurer to recover any sum paid by them in or towards the discharge of liability covered by the policy - under a condition in all motor insurance policies titled "Avoidance of Certain Terms and Rights of Recovery".

    "As most cases of injury claims tend to be of substantial amounts, a policyholder will suffer heavy financial loss if not covered by an expanded motor insurance policy," said GIA.

    The association said that for policyholders whose policy has a "limitation to use" warranty and who wishes to ferry passengers for "hire and reward", there are GIA member insurers that are "prepared to expand this limitation" to allow the vehicle to be insured for this purpose.

    GIA also advised motorists to check with their insurers if their private car policies with standard restriction for use can be widened to cover business apart from social, domestic and pleasure usage.

    - CNA/wl

    http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/...o/2189542.html

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Southbank
    Posts
    9,531

    Default

    IN THE last year, I have replaced most of the taxi rides in my life with Uber rides. Why? Because Uber service doesn’t suck. I started relying on taxis quite heavily since the birth of my first child and have come to realise that the core of the customer experience is service, from the service provided by the technology to the service provided by the driver and the company.

    Even as cab companies have begun jumping up and down crying “unfair”, the bottom line for me as a passenger remains – prove that your service is better and I will use it. If things become better for people – both drivers and passengers – why not let old ways die the death of the free market? Perhaps there is just a smaller slice of the market that still does want to do things the old way.

    Served by technology

    GrabCar and Uber apps have better interfaces and came to the fore, while taxi operators were still doing phone bookings or taunting us with clunky, amateurish apps. Car-sharing services gave the best real-time tracking, pioneered built-in feedback, allowed customers to call or message drivers, gave fare estimates, routes, showed the number and location of available cars and constantly improved their user experience.

    The market segment to which I belong has simply been served better, technology-wise. At a time when private car services had 4G connections and lots of data for passengers, even the most technologically advanced taxi companies were still crawling with 2G data connections to their cabs.

    Taxi drivers also have to pass a test of their knowledge of Singapore roads and routes. Hilariously, they are (as recently as 2014) tested on their ability to use a printed street directory, whereas private car services would already have your route plotted out via Google maps (including accidents, road works, congestion and more) before you even step into the car, and you have the option of prescribing another route. The service provided by knowledge of roads has been surpassed by a driver’s ability to use an app.

    Served by drivers

    Cab companies often gripe about how unfair it is that services like Uber and GrabCar don’t need to have their drivers get a vocational license like taxi drivers do, but the outcomes I have experienced actually show that private car drivers excel at the five areas that taxi drivers are supposed to learn during their training at the Singapore Taxi Academy: Service Overview and Road Safety, Rules and Regulations, Locate Destination, Plan Routes, and Deliver Quality Service.

    Taxi operators have griped about insurance premiums for cars (Uber drivers have to pay for commercial insurance) being cheaper than that for taxis. I presume that there could be two reasons for this – either taxis cost insurance companies more to insure because of the frequency/severity of claims or the insurance companies are exploiting taxi companies. Either way, I get the sense that private car services are actually safer because drivers are not clocking long hours in the seat. When they have no passengers, they can stop for a break, which means that they are less stressed, less aggressive and less fatigued.

    I took to hiding my family in the bushes while I did the flag-down alone. Once a cabby had agreed to pick me up, I would call my family out of hiding.
    The quality of taxi driver service in Singapore is varied. I have met the nicest drivers who go out of the way to accommodate, as well as taxi drivers who are downright rude, unwashed, unreasonable, unhelpful or, my pet peeve, drive with their foot on-off-on-off on the accelerator, resulting in a nausea-inducing rocking motion for their passengers. It is always hit-and-miss.

    Uber drivers are nearly always polite and helpful and I have never felt sick because of the way they drive. Cars may at worst be a little musty but that is not too bad compared to the smell of “smoker” taxis.

    Then there were taxi drivers who disliked picking up families with young children and will actually drive past a family. I took to hiding my family in the bushes while I did the flag-down alone. Once a cabby had agreed to pick me up, I would call my family out of hiding.

    There was one incident where, upon realising that I had a family in tow, the driver suddenly had a massive need to use the toilet, demanded that my family get out and drove away. I hoped he crapped his pants.

    Served by the company

    I take Uber because, at the end of each ride, I can give a rating to the driver. I know that Uber fleets will terminate the contract of any driver that falls below a certain standard and I am happy to be part of that feedback loop because it feels like the company cares about the quality of the service delivered to me. When I have a dissatisfactory taxi ride, I am left to fume about it with no straightforward recourse (there is an option to give feedback in the options section of the Comfort app, but I’ve never been prompted to give feedback).

    GrabCar and Uber also provide me with receipts for every ride so I can track my spending and make claims efficiently. If I leave something behind in the car, I will always know how to contact the driver, and even he will have a list of all his passengers after me. Add this to the cashless and automated payment system and you no longer have any awkward moments when you’ve got no cash but the taxi can’t take your credit card.

    With many taxi drivers making the switch from taxi to Uber and GrabCar, there is clearly an attraction for the person behind the wheel. It seems that these new companies also serve the needs of many cabbies better. Better earnings (especially in the early days), less stressful driving, automated payments, bonuses, lower rent, fewer cancellations and a bigger share of earnings meant that drivers didn’t feel that their company was trying to milk them for everything they could get.

    Now that taxi companies have lost so much ground to private car services because they failed to serve their customers (and drivers) better, are taxi companies going to buck up and get nimble or just keep crying foul?

    http://themiddleground.sg/2015/10/15...rve-me-better/

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,810

    Default

    Can a taxi driver uses his taxi to help people to deliver goods at a price?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Southbank
    Posts
    9,531

    Default

    yes

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcachon View Post
    yes
    I mean has 2 roles on the road, one is taxi driver and the other, work as a delivery man to help other company to deliver goods to their customers.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Southbank
    Posts
    9,531

    Default

    I saw Taxi driver sending newspaper before.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    4,035

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcachon View Post
    If you have follow closely what they say, Driverless Taxi is one they mention.

    There are lot of things going on behind the scene, for those who care get to know first.
    Newspaper Today mentioned a few days ago for trials for driverless cars (or taxis?) on AYE I think.

    Can't put a finger to it. Just found it hard to accept at the moment.
    The three laws of Kelonguni:

    Where there is kelong, there is guni.
    No kelong no guni.
    More kelong = more guni.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    650

    Default

    http://www.todayonline.com/singapore...roadmap-trials

    Gardens by the bay, west coast highway (freight only), sentosa, one-north (aka fusionopolis)

    IMHO, trial on highway safer than normal roads becos no turns, no pedestrian, no traffic light. One of the cons is road hogging on the leftmost lane.

    There is already driverless train. So driverless car is the next phase to go. The former runs on tracks whereas the latter doesn't. The next evolution is to have variable destinations. Current system is still based on fixed origin/destination points. Think iRobot, Minority Report, Total Recall, Fifth Element.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcachon View Post
    I saw Taxi driver sending newspaper before.
    Sideline?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by irisng View Post
    I mean has 2 roles on the road, one is taxi driver and the other, work as a delivery man to help other company to deliver goods to their customers.
    strictly speaking is cannot de, according to my taxi friend.
    Ong lai ah!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrTan View Post
    http://www.todayonline.com/singapore...roadmap-trials

    Gardens by the bay, west coast highway (freight only), sentosa, one-north (aka fusionopolis)

    IMHO, trial on highway safer than normal roads becos no turns, no pedestrian, no traffic light. One of the cons is road hogging on the leftmost lane.

    There is already driverless train. So driverless car is the next phase to go. The former runs on tracks whereas the latter doesn't. The next evolution is to have variable destinations. Current system is still based on fixed origin/destination points. Think iRobot, Minority Report, Total Recall, Fifth Element.
    Also have to take into consideration the car in front sudden stall, side way motor cars sway in, cutting lanes from other cars etc. Must have smart sensor loh.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by irisng View Post
    Also have to take into consideration the car in front sudden stall, side way motor cars sway in, cutting lanes from other cars etc. Must have smart sensor loh.
    Confirm this type of driverless car sure will have left right center front back cameras one. Anything happen jus refer to video footage for evidence lor. This is govt project leh. If got wrongdoing sure will send to TP one. Dun anyhow play play. See this type of driverless car must siam far far away lor.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Southbank
    Posts
    9,531

    Default

    Uber has made taxi drivers more hardworking

    http://www.straitstimes.com/lifestyl...ng#xtor=CS1-10

    I was late to the Uber party.

    Having heard about the infamous private car service, I, of course, downloaded the app on my phone to ensure that I was "with it". I even registered my credit card details, but I didn't use the service for ages.

    About four months ago, however, I tried Uber for the first time. I rarely take cabs because I drive, but that morning, I needed to get from the car workshop in Leng Kee Road where I had sent the car in for servicing, to the office in Toa Payoh.

    I had to go to Google to figure out the confusingly named car categories. Eventually I booked an UberX car, the most basic tier of service. The app told me it was a Toyota Wish, a mid-sized MPV, and the driver had a decent rating of 4.5 stars out of 5.

    When the silver car arrived, I noticed it was unmarked except for a small discreet Uber sticker. It felt like getting into a friend's car. After all, in which commercial taxi would you find rows of extra racing dials installed on the dashboard and the sloping pillar near the driver?

    It was obvious the driver took pride in both his car and his driving. He didn't talk much but when he did, it was to discuss the best route to take and it was clear that he was an expert driver who had driven far and wide in Singapore.

    When I arrived at my destination, he announced what the fare would be and stopped the car, expecting me to get out. Like the proverbial mountain tortoise, I asked:

    "Er, that's it?"

    "Yes," he said patiently. "You will receive an e-mail and the amount will be deducted from your credit card. That's all, good day."

    Slightly stunned at the stark simplicity of it all, I alighted. But I was so impressed I couldn't stop talking about it for days.

    Last week, I tried Uber again, going from the office to the workshop. This time, the driver who picked me up was a very young man who wore black plastic hipster glasses and had his trousers cuffed uber-high on the ankle. It was quite obvious from his age that the Toyota he ushered me into was a rental.

    He had two mobile phones attached to the dashboard of the car. One of them rang and beeped incessantly, and each time it did, I could see how unsure he was about whether to take the call. Each time he fiddled with the device, my heart skipped a beat because he took his eyes off the highway.

    The other phone was showing the route he should take on something that looked like Google Maps. But despite the fact that it was clearly marked out, he asked me to confirm which way he should be going at every single turn and fork in the road.

    In a way, the two Uber trips exemplify the two opposing arguments in a fierce policy debate about the entry of such private car services into the taxi market here.

    Traditional taxi operators and taxi drivers are unhappy because a lack of regulation allows what seems to be an infinite supply of competitors into the market.

    They are not wrong. "Drive Uber" has apparently become one of the hottest buzzwords in the part-time or freelance space. You don't need a lot of specialised skills or experience and work hours are extremely flexible.

    "No office, no boss" says the Uber recruitment ad.

    If you ask around enough, you'll probably find someone you know who is doing it. I have a friend who is trained as a chef who is currently "driving Uber" with a private car he rented for $70 a day.

    Not surprisingly, those who use the app regularly tell me the number of Uber cars available at any point in time has shot up in recent months. Meanwhile, a recent Straits Times exclusive shows hundreds of traditional taxi cabs sitting in a yard in Sungei Kadut, driverless and unloved.

    The economist in me tells me there is some serious misallocation of resources going on. If rental cars are being used as "taxis" instead of licensed taxi cabs, what happens when there is a big demand for rental cars, like during Chinese New Year or Hari Raya?

    And the armchair policymaker in me says this is largely the result of an uneven playing field. Without the need for proper licensing and training, it is so much easier to "drive Uber" than to drive a traditional taxi.

    Cab drivers are right to be alarmed. Hipsters who require passengers to confirm GPS directions are eating their lunch.

    In some countries, services such as Uber have already been banned to protect the traditional taxi industry.

    In others where they have not, cab drivers are taking the law into their own hands. Recent reports have emerged of traditional cab drivers stopping Uber cars in Kuala Lumpur, driving terrified passengers out and beating up the Uber drivers. Uber drivers are responding by driving like madmen through the streets.

    All this must surely factor in the new review the Government has announced of private car services in Singapore, to be chaired by Senior Minister of State for Transport Ng Chee Meng. But he would do well to listen to more than just the economist or the armchair policymaker. He needs to listen to consumers.

    And the consumer in me says that services such as Uber and GrabTaxi have been nothing less than a godsend in a country that cannot seem to solve its taxi woes.

    How so? Well, for starters, it is now much easier to get a cab at any time of the day. If supply is really short (like on a rainy Monday morning) and you desperately need to get to a meeting, you at least have the option of hiring a premium UberXL car. It will cost a bomb, but you will get there.

    Then there is the quantum leap in convenience and customer service that services like Uber have brought. No more do people have to worry about whether they have the "small notes" to pay the taxi driver and how black his face might be when he finds he has to deal with (horrors!) a $50 note or a credit card at the end of the journey.

    A new Uber-like service for pets was recently launched, promising stress-free rides for pet owners who are taking their furries to the vet or the groomer. Any pet owner can tell you how difficult it is to find a traditional taxi that will take pets. One friend told me that the only way is to book a cab, but each time he tells the operator that the taxi needs to take pets, the message never gets through and a taxi will invariably arrive that refuses to do so.

    Finally, I'm hearing plenty of anecdotal evidence that Singapore's traditional taxi drivers are finally becoming more hardworking and service-oriented.

    To be sure, there are still drivers like the elderly uncle I often see chatting at a nearby coffee shop during morning rush hour while his Comfort cab sits in the driveway of his landed terrace house.

    But increasingly, I'm seeing traditional taxi drivers with as many as four or five phones on their dashboards corresponding to the various taxi booking apps that have sprouted in Singapore. I'm not sure if their taxi operators allow them to do this, but these must surely be the most dilligent cab drivers on the roads, ever willing to pick up a booking from any source.

    On the street, people are also reporting that cab drivers have become less choosy about passengers and less strategic about when they appear (for example, only after midnight but never close to it).

    After all, nothing motivates like extra competition.

    The taxi lobby has always been a powerful influence in politics and it does have many good points to make in the Uber debate.

    Mr Ng and his review team will have to be extra skilful in their deliberations, to ensure a fair and progressive outcome for all.

    ST_20151018_IG2_1767065.pdf

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Southbank
    Posts
    9,531

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,837

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by irisng View Post
    I mean has 2 roles on the road, one is taxi driver and the other, work as a delivery man to help other company to deliver goods to their customers.


    i have in several occasions, saw, when i was drinking kopi at Great World City, passengers, loaded their shopping goods into taxi, gave the driver the address, pay in advance an amount higher than metered, and continued shopping...while the taxi driver drives off and deliver the 'goods'...

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by proud owner View Post
    i have in several occasions, saw, when i was drinking kopi at Great World City, passengers, loaded their shopping goods into taxi, gave the driver the address, pay in advance an amount higher than metered, and continued shopping...while the taxi driver drives off and deliver the 'goods'...
    Wow, the passenger trust the taxi driver? But I think this is ok because instead of sending people home, the driver sent the goods home.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    5,837

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by irisng View Post
    Wow, the passenger trust the taxi driver? But I think this is ok because instead of sending people home, the driver sent the goods home.

    YES SO FAR ALL ANG MOHS


    THEY REALLY THINK SPORE IS SAFE AHHAHA

    BUT SO FAR I GUESS NO ISSUE ...

    AND MAYBE THEIR MAID IS WAITING AT THE CONDO/HOUSE TO COLLECT THE GOODS

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    2,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by proud owner View Post
    YES SO FAR ALL ANG MOHS


    THEY REALLY THINK SPORE IS SAFE AHHAHA

    BUT SO FAR I GUESS NO ISSUE ...

    AND MAYBE THEIR MAID IS WAITING AT THE CONDO/HOUSE TO COLLECT THE GOODS
    If it happens that there are 2 maids at the entrance waiting for the same reason, will there be a chance that the taxi driver passes the goods to the wrong maid, hahaha. But I think the taxi driver will mention their master name.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Southbank
    Posts
    9,531

    Default

    http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/...te#xtor=CS1-10

    An economically sensible approach to car-sharing services is one that benefits consumers and does not over-protect taxi company incumbents
    Many years ago, when the Malaysian budget airline AirAsia appeared, the then Ministry of Communications was faced with a dilemma. Should Singapore's aviation policy advance the interests of Singapore Airlines and its regional carrier, SilkAir, or should it seek to maintain Changi's position as an aviation hub?

    Eventually, the correct decision was made: The public interest was defined in terms of Changi's hub status; Changi Airport should also strive to capture a significant slice of the burgeoning budget airline market. This decision has served Singapore and Singaporean travellers well.

    Today, the Ministry of Transport (MOT) faces a similar dilemma. Should its policies for the taxi industry protect existing operators, or should they be agnostic about which firms succeed or fail?

    Advertisement
    This issue has arisen because of the emergence of third-party car-sharing apps that have the potential of disintermediating taxi companies and disrupting the taxi industry. How should the MOT decide?

    To be sure, there are already some rules governing car-sharing apps like Uber and GrabCar. For instance, these companies are required to ensure that their drivers have a valid driving licence and are not illegal immigrants. The drivers also pay the higher car insurance rates set for commercial, rather than personal, use. They are not allowed to pick up passengers hailing taxis. The question facing the MOT today is whether beyond these requirements, there should be any additional rules.

    There is concern that platform-based businesses like Uber (left) and Airbnb operate with scant regard for existing legal frameworks and industry norms.
    Related Story
    In love with Uber and Airbnb? You might have 'disruption fever'

    Unlike aviation, the taxi industry is a non-tradable one. An inefficient taxi industry does not (really) hurt our international competitiveness. Perhaps because of this, a slew of uneconomic arguments making the case for more regulation of car-sharing apps has crept into the public debate in recent months.

    This is dangerous.

    Uber and GrabCar are unlikely to be the last of the technology-driven innovations to disrupt the domestic services sector in Singapore. Our regulatory position towards these car-sharing apps - as unimportant as they may be to our overall competitiveness - sends an important signal of whether the authorities in Singapore stand on the side of competition and consumer choice, or on the side of regulation and protection of incumbent firms.

    Most economists agree that the right policy response to the emergence of these more convenient and potentially lower-priced alternatives is to welcome the disruption and disintermediation they bring rather than erect new regulatory barriers to soften the impacts on incumbents.

    The arguments for more regulation of these car-sharing apps are also surprisingly flimsy.

    THE 'SAFETY' ISSUE

    The first argument commonly cited in favour of more regulation is passenger safety - either road safety or personal safety. It goes something like this: Since Uber's drivers aren't licensed taxi drivers, how would passengers know that they are not dangerous or that they have sufficient knowledge of Singapore's roads?

    Safety is one of those things that people think about, mistakenly, in binary terms. This misconception is buttressed by cliches such as "your safety is our utmost priority" and "we should never compromise on safety".

    In reality, none of us demands or expects absolute safety. We are constantly trading away safety for other things that we value - convenience, speed or cost. Some of us take up a more dangerous job than a less dangerous one - if we are paid more. We do not find these choices controversial or surprising. Neither do we ask that the more dangerous jobs be regulated to a point that they are as safe as a desk-bound job.

    People also seldom think probabilistically about safety and often overreact to risks that are more vivid or more easily imagined. They pay more attention to lower-frequency but more dramatic events - such as terrorist attacks or plane crashes - than to less dramatic but higher-frequency events. For instance, most of us are probably unaware that suicide causes more deaths than traffic accidents.

    Being new and unfamiliar, car-sharing apps may excite people's imagination about the risks to their safety. We therefore exaggerate the risks of car-sharing and assume that it is riskier than it actually is because of a few high-profile stories of violent Uber drivers.

    Even if it were true that Uber drivers are less safe than licensed taxi drivers (there is, in fact, very little evidence to suggest that this assumption is empirically true), why is that necessarily an argument for more regulation?

    In a market economy, we rely on people making their own risk-reward calculations and deciding for themselves whether they value a bit more convenience and affordability over safety. So long as consumers have a choice, we usually do not expect regulators to enforce uniform safety standards.

    'LEVEL PLAYING FIELD'

    The second argument that is commonly cited in favour of (more) regulation is that government has a responsibility to ensure a level playing field. This argument is intuitively attractive because it appeals to our sense of fairness.

    But let's be clear that in Singapore's context at least, the "level playing field" that some are arguing for is aimed at levelling the playing field for taxi companies rather than for taxi drivers.

    Unlike many other cities where cab drivers have incurred large expenses to acquire the right to operate a taxi, taxi drivers in Singapore do not face high upfront costs to drive a taxi.

    In fact, taxi drivers may actually have benefited from the new apps. Even if they do not switch to being independent drivers, they benefit from having superior apps that match taxis to passengers more efficiently, increasing their potential pool of customers.

    So it's not the taxi drivers who are adversely affected; it's the taxi companies that are. Taxi companies are the ones that have borne most of the risks of offering taxi services - most notably in the form of maintaining a (large) fleet of taxis that are rented out to licensed cab drivers.

    But isn't the fact that taxi companies have taken on these risks and now face the problem of stranded assets a reason to level the playing field for them? Not necessarily.

    Running a business entails all kinds of risks, not least the risks of technology and business model obsolescence. The compensation for bearing these risks is profit. If their profits are dwindling as a result of new competition, they simply have to adapt: Lower their prices, copy the competitors which are eating into their profits or exit the market altogether.

    This process of creative destruction is at the heart of the market economy. Only rarely is the right response to "level the playing field" such that the new firms which are disrupting outdated business models and giving customers more options face the same constraints and regulations as the incumbents. Doing so erodes the very benefits of creative destruction.

    THINKING CORRECTLY ABOUT REGULATION

    People are often drawn instinctively to more government regulation; they seldom see the costs of regulation and they assume that regulation always serves the interests of consumers. But in this context, the case for more regulation turns out to be extremely weak.

    For decades, transport policymakers here have grappled with the problem of ensuring a better match between taxis and passengers - across both time and space. Those of us who take taxis have had to put up with an increasingly complicated and bewildering system of surcharges in pursuit of this objective.

    Now we have the technological means to solve this problem. It boggles the mind that instead of embracing these new car-sharing apps, there are those who call for more regulation - regulation that, in our context, really just amounts to the protection of incumbent firms.

    Regulation may be a justifiable policy response if the market is not working well. In this instance, new digital technologies and business models have made the market work much better than it ever did before.

    Consumers benefit from greater choice and convenience. Taxi drivers are not hurt to an extent that we should require the entrants to be subject to more regulations; instead, they may even benefit from the new apps.

    The only losers are existing taxi companies. But regulation should not exist to protect incumbents. Neither should there be a presumption that just because an activity poses some risks to safety, regulators must step in.

    Just as we do not expect the state to regulate freelance tutors, domestic helpers, physical trainers, personal chefs and a whole host of people who provide personal services, all of which involve some risks to our personal safety, neither should we expect the state to impose more regulations on people offering car-sharing services.

    Asking the state to do so should require a high burden of proof by the proponents of regulation that additional rules and regulations serve the interests of consumers and do not dampen the incentives for innovation and industry disruption. The proponents of more regulations to "level the playing field" have, so far, failed to make this case.

    • The writer is the associate dean for executive education and research at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,988

    Default

    very long thesis....
    to me , a simple fact "strikes" me this morning: it was raining, and all the taxis disappeared. I saw so many desperate ppl trying to hail a taxi along the road, with no taxi in sight. (one of them looks like a student, rushing for O level ?)
    as much as I would want to feel sympathetic for the taxi drivers, but really where are you when you are needed ?
    get uber drivers pay the license fee, remove the silly "minimum distance requirement per day", so every one fair play, and see who is the real crook in this business.

  25. #25
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    All the for-hire taxis disappeared from the roads? Or they waiting for call-in so as to earn an extra fare?

    The dire situation and poor service of Singapore taxis arise from many fronts, and 1 is that the cab rental are very expensive!

    To counter Uber, the government can let taxi drivers own their taxis, and only pay profit-sharing to their affiliated taxi companies so as to minimize cab rentals? In this way the taxi companies become operate like "Uber"?
    But then SMRT, ComfortDelgro will suffer? Right pockets suffer how?
    Will they make the right decision?

    Quote Originally Posted by amk View Post
    very long thesis....
    to me , a simple fact "strikes" me this morning: it was raining, and all the taxis disappeared. I saw so many desperate ppl trying to hail a taxi along the road, with no taxi in sight. (one of them looks like a student, rushing for O level ?)
    as much as I would want to feel sympathetic for the taxi drivers, but really where are you when you are needed ?
    get uber drivers pay the license fee, remove the silly "minimum distance requirement per day", so every one fair play, and see who is the real crook in this business.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    5

    Default Re: Taxi

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcachon View Post
    SINGAPORE: The General Insurance Association of Singapore (GIA) has advised private owners who are using their cars to ferry passengers in return for a fare to get expanded motor insurance coverage.

    In a press statement on Tuesday (Oct 13), GIA said it wants to inform these motorists that their private insurance policies have a "limitation to use" condition, which restricts usage to "social, domestic and pleasure purposes".

    This means that if the vehicle is used for "hire or reward" purposes, the insurer is entitled to void the policy on account of breach of warranty, and the policyholder can be denied indemnity under the policy.

    Examples of such "hire and reward" usage would be motorists who use their private cars to provide transport services for a fee via ride-sharing apps like Uber and GrabCar.

    For example, in the event of an accident, the insurer will not be liable to pay for the damage to the vehicle insured, damage to third-party property, or bodily injury resulting from the accident.

    GIA also added that while "an insurer may deny indemnity to the policyholder on property damage claim, the Motor Vehicle (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act Cap 189 disallows an insurer from denying compensation to claimants for third party bodily injury".

    However, the same Act also has a provision in Section 8 (3) that allows the insurer to recover any sum paid by them in or towards the discharge of liability covered by the policy - under a condition in all motor insurance policies titled "Avoidance of Certain Terms and Rights of Recovery".

    "As most cases of injury claims tend to be of substantial amounts, a policyholder will suffer heavy financial loss if not covered by an expanded motor insurance policy," said GIA.

    The association said that for policyholders whose policy has a "limitation to use" warranty and who wishes to ferry passengers for "hire and reward", there are GIA member insurers that are "prepared to expand this limitation" to allow the vehicle to be insured for this purpose.

    GIA also advised motorists to check with their insurers if their private car policies with standard restriction for use can be widened to cover business apart from social, domestic and pleasure usage.

    - CNA/wl

    http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/...o/2189542.html
    Hello,
    Axa Singapore is part of GIA ?
    Thanks

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2019
    Posts
    5

    Default Re: Taxi

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcachon View Post
    http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/...te#xtor=CS1-10

    An economically sensible approach to car-sharing services is one that benefits consumers and does not over-protect taxi company incumbents
    Many years ago, when the Malaysian budget airline AirAsia appeared, the then Ministry of Communications was faced with a dilemma. Should Singapore's aviation policy advance the interests of Singapore Airlines and its regional carrier, SilkAir, or should it seek to maintain Changi's position as an aviation hub?

    Eventually, the correct decision was made: The public interest was defined in terms of Changi's hub status; Changi Airport should also strive to capture a significant slice of the burgeoning budget airline market. This decision has served Singapore and Singaporean travellers well.

    Today, the Ministry of Transport (MOT) faces a similar dilemma. Should its policies for the taxi industry protect existing operators, or should they be agnostic about which firms succeed or fail?

    Advertisement
    This issue has arisen because of the emergence of third-party car-sharing apps that have the potential of disintermediating taxi companies and disrupting the taxi industry. How should the MOT decide?

    To be sure, there are already some rules governing car-sharing apps like Uber and GrabCar. For instance, these companies are required to ensure that their drivers have a valid driving licence and are not illegal immigrants. The drivers also pay the higher car insurance rates set for commercial, rather than personal, use. They are not allowed to pick up passengers hailing taxis. The question facing the MOT today is whether beyond these requirements, there should be any additional rules.

    There is concern that platform-based businesses like Uber (left) and Airbnb operate with scant regard for existing legal frameworks and industry norms.
    Related Story
    In love with Uber and Airbnb? You might have 'disruption fever'

    Unlike aviation, the taxi industry is a non-tradable one. An inefficient taxi industry does not (really) hurt our international competitiveness. Perhaps because of this, a slew of uneconomic arguments making the case for more regulation of car-sharing apps has crept into the public debate in recent months.

    This is dangerous.

    Uber and GrabCar are unlikely to be the last of the technology-driven innovations to disrupt the domestic services sector in Singapore. Our regulatory position towards these car-sharing apps - as unimportant as they may be to our overall competitiveness - sends an important signal of whether the authorities in Singapore stand on the side of competition and consumer choice, or on the side of regulation and protection of incumbent firms.

    Most economists agree that the right policy response to the emergence of these more convenient and potentially lower-priced alternatives is to welcome the disruption and disintermediation they bring rather than erect new regulatory barriers to soften the impacts on incumbents.

    The arguments for more regulation of these car-sharing apps are also surprisingly flimsy.

    THE 'SAFETY' ISSUE

    The first argument commonly cited in favour of more regulation is passenger safety - either road safety or personal safety. It goes something like this: Since Uber's drivers aren't licensed taxi drivers, how would passengers know that they are not dangerous or that they have sufficient knowledge of Singapore's roads?

    Safety is one of those things that people think about, mistakenly, in binary terms. This misconception is buttressed by cliches such as "your safety is our utmost priority" and "we should never compromise on safety".

    In reality, none of us demands or expects absolute safety. We are constantly trading away safety for other things that we value - convenience, speed or cost. Some of us take up a more dangerous job than a less dangerous one - if we are paid more. We do not find these choices controversial or surprising. Neither do we ask that the more dangerous jobs be regulated to a point that they are as safe as a desk-bound job.

    People also seldom think probabilistically about safety and often overreact to risks that are more vivid or more easily imagined. They pay more attention to lower-frequency but more dramatic events - such as terrorist attacks or plane crashes - than to less dramatic but higher-frequency events. For instance, most of us are probably unaware that suicide causes more deaths than traffic accidents.

    Being new and unfamiliar, car-sharing apps may excite people's imagination about the risks to their safety. We therefore exaggerate the risks of car-sharing and assume that it is riskier than it actually is because of a few high-profile stories of violent Uber drivers.

    Even if it were true that Uber drivers are less safe than licensed taxi drivers (there is, in fact, very little evidence to suggest that this assumption is empirically true), why is that necessarily an argument for more regulation?

    In a market economy, we rely on people making their own risk-reward calculations and deciding for themselves whether they value a bit more convenience and affordability over safety. So long as consumers have a choice, we usually do not expect regulators to enforce uniform safety standards.

    'LEVEL PLAYING FIELD'

    The second argument that is commonly cited in favour of (more) regulation is that government has a responsibility to ensure a level playing field. This argument is intuitively attractive because it appeals to our sense of fairness.

    But let's be clear that in Singapore's context at least, the "level playing field" that some are arguing for is aimed at levelling the playing field for taxi companies rather than for taxi drivers.

    Unlike many other cities where cab drivers have incurred large expenses to acquire the right to operate a taxi, taxi drivers in Singapore do not face high upfront costs to drive a taxi.

    In fact, taxi drivers may actually have benefited from the new apps. Even if they do not switch to being independent drivers, they benefit from having superior apps that match taxis to passengers more efficiently, increasing their potential pool of customers.

    So it's not the taxi drivers who are adversely affected; it's the taxi companies that are. Taxi companies are the ones that have borne most of the risks of offering taxi services - most notably in the form of maintaining a (large) fleet of taxis that are rented out to licensed cab drivers.

    But isn't the fact that taxi companies have taken on these risks and now face the problem of stranded assets a reason to level the playing field for them? Not necessarily.

    Running a business entails all kinds of risks, not least the risks of technology and business model obsolescence. The compensation for bearing these risks is profit. If their profits are dwindling as a result of new competition, they simply have to adapt: Lower their prices, copy the competitors which are eating into their profits or exit the market altogether.

    This process of creative destruction is at the heart of the market economy. Only rarely is the right response to "level the playing field" such that the new firms which are disrupting outdated business models and giving customers more options face the same constraints and regulations as the incumbents. Doing so erodes the very benefits of creative destruction.

    THINKING CORRECTLY ABOUT REGULATION

    People are often drawn instinctively to more government regulation; they seldom see the costs of regulation and they assume that regulation always serves the interests of consumers. But in this context, the case for more regulation turns out to be extremely weak.

    For decades, transport policymakers here have grappled with the problem of ensuring a better match between taxis and passengers - across both time and space. Those of us who take taxis have had to put up with an increasingly complicated and bewildering system of surcharges in pursuit of this objective.

    Now we have the technological means to solve this problem. It boggles the mind that instead of embracing these new car-sharing apps, there are those who call for more regulation - regulation that, in our context, really just amounts to the protection of incumbent firms.

    Regulation may be a justifiable policy response if the market is not working well. In this instance, new digital technologies and business models have made the market work much better than it ever did before.

    Consumers benefit from greater choice and convenience. Taxi drivers are not hurt to an extent that we should require the entrants to be subject to more regulations; instead, they may even benefit from the new apps.

    The only losers are existing taxi companies. But regulation should not exist to protect incumbents. Neither should there be a presumption that just because an activity poses some risks to safety, regulators must step in.

    Just as we do not expect the state to regulate freelance tutors, domestic helpers, physical trainers, personal chefs and a whole host of people who provide personal services, all of which involve some risks to our personal safety, neither should we expect the state to impose more regulations on people offering car-sharing services.

    Asking the state to do so should require a high burden of proof by the proponents of regulation that additional rules and regulations serve the interests of consumers and do not dampen the incentives for innovation and industry disruption. The proponents of more regulations to "level the playing field" have, so far, failed to make this case.

    • The writer is the associate dean for executive education and research at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore.
    Hello, I have another question..
    Could you please review this insurance ? https://www.axa.com.sg/car-insurance
    Thanks !!

Similar Threads

  1. Taxi becomes fireball at D'Leedon condo
    By reporter2 in forum Singapore Private Condominium Property Discussion and News
    Replies: 0
    -: 20-09-21, 14:14
  2. In for a scary taxi ride
    By Arcachon in forum Coffeeshop Talk
    Replies: 1
    -: 05-09-17, 07:32
  3. Taxi drivers earning 7k per month?!
    By phantom_opera in forum Coffeeshop Talk
    Replies: 14
    -: 28-10-12, 14:22
  4. Taxi no airbag?
    By House in forum Coffeeshop Talk
    Replies: 17
    -: 23-05-12, 00:38
  5. TAXI driver is it a LOW down job...
    By radha08 in forum Coffeeshop Talk
    Replies: 54
    -: 01-05-12, 22:05

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •