Italy Bans Uber - FYI

I truly hope for the financial worse for taxi drivers and companies. I dislike the way old-school taxi industry operates with a passion and wish bankruptcy upon them all.

Soon the Taxi Lobby will convince the courts that it is illegal for anybody to drive a family member or a friend to the airport, because it is unfair competition to taxi drivers.

So surprised to read your posts Andre, Roberto and Kaeleku, most posters here are very critical of Uber. I'm with you guys, big fan of Uber. Much better than old school taxis. Brilliant business model and a far better experience. Glad to see I'm not alone here.

After reading last weekend's Uber expose in the Big Apple Times about their tactics, I'm glad I don't give them a cent. I prefer to spend my money on firms and business models which provide their employees with living wages:
http://tinyurl.com/m8tts6l

I agree that Ride share is the future, uber needs to get their ducks in a row but their model will eventually succeed.

I prefer ride share to traditional taxis for at least a dozen reasons. Pay in advance, no tips, no cash, the app.. can't beat that model.

Love the taxis.

Yep, a friend of ours drove for uber for awhile and it can be tough to make the job financially worth the effort.

I have a friend that drives for Uber now and she loves it.

I have no problems giving my business with Uber. They, along with other ride-sharing services identified and addressed a need, the current business that serviced this need, taxi cabs, were woefully deficient. From surly drivers, to shoddy vehicles, to questionable availability, taxi services have all but, forced themselves out-of-business because of their refusal to evolve and modernize.

can't beat that model

Uber lost 3 Billion dollar$ last year.

One explanation for the 3 billion expected loss:

https://techcrunch.com/2016/12/21/uber-losses-expected-to-hit-3-billion-in-2016-despite-revenue-growth/

Quotes from article:

"developing self-driving vehicles, growing its food delivery business, paying drivers and employees, and a lot of affiliated lawsuits and lobbying."

"spent hundreds of millions on improving its map-tech so it won’t have to rely on outside partners for its navigation systems and location data."

I think taxi drivers have an image problem and it's due to the fact that some of the members of that trade are not as honest as they should be.

Those not so ethical taxi drivers are probably the minority, but nevertheless that minority affects their reputation. Whenever I get on a taxi in Florence I purposely speak to them in Florentine to give immediately to message that I'm not an American tourist to be taken advantage of by taking a longer route. I don't feel the need to do so with other categories of workers. And this is not an Italian only problem. I'm reasonably certain I've never been scammed by an Italian taxi driver, since I know the cities I've used them well, but I've been scammed (or nearly scammed) by taxi drivers 4 times in the US. In NY in DC in Chicago and at the Oakland airport. And those are the times I know for sure.

In the US the vehicles are also old and in disrepair. At least most Italian cities don't allow taxi cars to be older than 4 years old.

Wow, the Italian Taxi associations sure wield a lot of power. There will of course be an appeal, and this could drag on in the courts for years.

We've been successful so far in keeping Uber out of B.C., and I'm really pleased about that. I don't inherently object to Uber or similar services, but believe there should be a level playing field with other transportation-for-hire services. It's completely unfair to require one provider to spend thousands of dollars every year on licensing, inspections, liability insurance and things of that type, while allowing another entity to provide the same services with the family jalopy without any regulation whatsoever. It's simply not fair! Don't get me started on the subject of "surge pricing".

However there may be a change before the end of the year as it's an election year and the government is trying to scrounge votes from as many people as possible. I've already sent a letter to the appropriate officials to register my disapproval with the plan.

Kaeleku,

Here in heavily regulated B.C., regulations are also in place to protect the consumer. If they don't protect the consumer, the politicians are held to account. With a service of this type, it's important to ensure that consumers are provided with vehicles that meet specific standards and are inspected regularly and drivers who are properly trained and have to meet standards of competence. We have mandatory government auto insurance in B.C., so it's also important to ensure that increased liability settlements will not be passed on to other drivers. Those who are making a profit providing transportation services should pay an appropriate amount and not expect taxpayers to support their for-profit enterprise.

Regardless of the terminology I chose to use (family jalopy), I still maintain that there should be a level playing field with anyone operating a service of this type. Our government has maintained strict control so far by threatening to charge Uber drivers and possibly impound their vehicles (which they have the power to do).

One other aspect to consider is that it's likely that Taxis will be the only service that provides specialized (and expensive) vehicles that can accommodate handicapped passengers. Uber will likely siphon off the most profitable segment of the market (ie: non-handicapped) and it's entirely possible that some Taxi companies may be forced into bankruptcy, leaving the handicapped with few (or expensive) transport options.

I've used Taxis a lot in the last few months, and I can tell you from personal experience that the service has always been good, the price have been reasonable. Thankfully I didn't have to worry about being "price gouged" into bankruptcy with Uber's so-called "surge pricing". The drivers were also really helpful in dealing with a (temporarily) handicapped person, and most importantly they had vehicles which could accommodate someone in my circumstances.

As I mentioned earlier, this is an election year and I will be raising this issue with candidates to make my views known.

To be clear when I said "can't beat that model" I was referring to the consumer. I understand uber lost money, but with manufactures like Audi investing in companies like SilverCar, and traditional cabs improving regulation and adding apps for similar services I think it's a win.

I hope Cars will eventually be seen as luxury items again, not a necessity.

I am a big fan of taxis when traveling abroad and we used them a lot in Rome when we lived there. We were always treated fairly, but speaking the language helps. And if you use an app (Taxi.IT), you can reserve and pay with a card online. You never have to tip in Italy.

I did not imply Uber (or similar ride-share apps) don't have their own problems, or that there should not be a playing field (by slashing unnecessary costs such as ohterworld-ly unjustified fees imposed on taxis, need to wait years for a permit (or pay someone who holds permits) and freeing them to compete with ride-share, not the other way around).

My problem with the taxi industry, in most places, is that they are just technologically stuck in the past and that I was swindled way too many times. Not necessarily in outrageous ways but enough to get a bitter taste for the entire business model of getting into a car, then hoping the meter is right, the route is fair, and that the driver won't drag feet when giving change. My anger at the technologically outdated aspect of the business (not accepting cards, not having apps themselves that allowed passengers to order a ride without having to call on a voice line, or wait for the uncertain arrival of the cab without a way of monitoring its location) grew over the years.

In most European (or North American, for that matter) cities, cabs were doing business as if we were still in 1996. Hail it, go to a taxi stand, or call them. No internet services at all. Cannot pay with cards (even with surcharge). Opaque fee systems.

To top it all, in most cities the number of taxis is restricted. Decades back, the argument was that it was important to only authorize a number of cabs that would allow all drivers to have decent business on a yearly basis. This created an artificial restriction on the market, so the licenses do drive cabs themselves started to have intrinsic value (in New York City, the 'medallion' reached a top value of $ 800.000 in the early 2000s, just a bureaucratic authorization to operate as a yellow cab; values never reached such extremes in Europe but similar dynamics happens to this day). Then, especially in cities where tourists are the majority of cab patronage, pressure mounted to not expand the number of authorized cabs, because hard-working people (which I have no doubt most drivers are) had invested significant amounts of money not only to buy cars but, often, the license to operate the car as a cab.

I'm not an unsympathetic prick, and I understand the dismay of a simpler person trying to make ends meet seeing his or her livelihood destroyed by market competition. Yet, their rage should be directed at the government licensing system. Yet, doesn't make keeping this monopoly as such a right thing. I am also sympathetic for bookstore owners who lost their livelihood when Amazon decimated their business and still does, but that doesn't mean online shopping should be outlawed to preserve a business model technology rendered obsolete.

The plea for everyone who drives-for-hire be subject to same medical, training, background requirement is fair; that I can support.

I LOVE UBER and LYFT here in Chicago. The APPS show cost before you request and I just take the cheaper one!

The only way i survived Rome taxis was to Google worldtaximeter ahead of time for accurate fare; otherwise those ripoff drivers would try scamming me for quadruple fare !!!

In addition to the costly medallions, many European countries require taxi drivers pass 2-day exams, memorizing every street in their area, truck loading times when roads can be blocked, best routes, etc. Unlike some posters who seem to attract rouge drivers like a bee to honey, I've had good experiences 99% of the time in Europe and major US cities. My worst experience was here in my mid-west small, college town where cabs companies hire anyone. It's places like my hometown with its non-professional taxi drivers where I'd favor Uber and Lyft.

However, Uber's model is any Joe Schmo can drive from point A to point B as long as they keep clients happy, bringing us to the evaluations drivers and passengers write about each other. That's the quality control. Eventually, Uber's eagerness to implement driver-less cars will eliminate Joe Scho because it's all about the bottom line first and foremost no matter who gets crushed.

I agree that regulations should provide for a level playing field. There are lots of requirements, tests, insurance minimums, vehicle standards that taxi drivers have to go through in Italy and elsewhere. Some of them are unnecessary like the need to know every street in the city. We have gps navigation now. So it would be unfair for another competing entity not to be subject to the same regulatory requirements.

However I don't like the policy which restricts the number of taxi licenses in any given city. Last year Florentine taxi drivers went on strike for days because the city wanted to issue 70 additional licenses. Florence has a shortage of taxis and the limit had not been raised for many years. Eventually the city was successful, but only after agreeing the new licenses were only for electric cars, among other things.

I'm ok that everybody should meet the same requirements, but once one does, that person should be issued a license with no number limit. There are no limits on the number of nursing licenses the State of California can issue, or the number of any trade license. Why should taxi drivers be afforded protection from competition by limiting the number of new entrants in the market?

There are many legitimate issues with taxis, their monopoly power and service issues. BUT...this does not make Uber free of the same critical thinking and analysis as applied to taxis. I think it's important not to conflate the two or to use one as an example to automatically justify the other (i.e. it does not automatically follow that if someone is unhappy with taxis, then Uber is the sole alternative, giant warts and all...one should ask first whether the taxi system can or should be reformed and whether that would be a laudable goal).

I would urge everyone who is enamored with Uber to take some time to research their business practices and the way they have entered various markets (Austin in effect forced them out by refusing to adopt Uber's way of doing things). There are not enough characters here to debate every point, so I'll leave it for others to decide whether Uber fits into their ethical framework when traveling. I know that I am not OK with Uber, so I'm putting my money where my mouth is. I'm a true fan of ridesharing, but not with Uber (or Lyft). They have a neat ridesharing system here in Northern VA...it's called "slugging"..no money is exchanged and yet people have figured out how to make ridesharing work on their job commutes (strangers basically share a ride so that the (previously) solo driver can use the HOV lane...both people and the environment benefits). I'm not saying this would work for other types of rides, but there are many, many models of "ridesharing" out there...it's not only Uber.

Kaeleku,
Your experiences are certainly stressful and would drive me to a website with a guaranteed price, too.

However, two of your examples, Bulgaria and Poland are scams posing as taxis, not taxis. Your complaint is having to distinguish the real from the fake. The ones getting truly scammed, along with the client, are the real drivers trying to make a living.
As for Seville, it's known in Spain as the "Chicago of Spain", meaning Al Capone and the original gangsters.

Finally, taxi websites give a usual rate along with the two extremes so you know it could be anywhere within that range--and hope for the best. Is this any different from summoning a Uber but to have surge pricing change the price or to have the driver cancel because a more money is to be made elsewhere? Are these urban legends?

A few points to add to my earlier replies.....

One theory that has been mentioned on this subject is that "for one to live, the other must die." That's something that should be considered in determining the best service model for consumers.

The last paragraph in my letter to local authorities was this....

"One final point I’d like to mention is that I also believe the taxi services must modernize and provide better services for consumers. There have been news reports from some areas stating that some customers have waited for two hours or more at peak times (New Years) simply because insufficient taxis were available. I don’t know whether the number of vehicles is regulated by the province or by cities, but something has to change. The taxi industry must acknowledge that if they don’t provide the service, someone else will."

Who knows where this is going to end up?

"Some of them are unnecessary like the need to know every street in the city. We have gps navigation now."

I'm not sure I agree with that. I've always had exemplary service from Taxis in London where drivers have "the Knowledge" - fast, efficient and I've never felt that I was being taken on the "Grand Tour" of obscure city streets to run the meter up.

OTOH, I encountered a Taxi driver in Rome who was using a GPS but still couldn't find an easy address for a restaurant, despite the fact that I provided him with a detailed address listing in Italian. After his feeble mind couldn't figure out how to use the GPS, he called his brother-in-law, who was also a mental midget and he couldn't provide any directions either. I finally just gave up and walked to a nearby restaurant that I knew of. I suppose I could have taken his number and made a big fuss of his incompetence but I was tired, hungry and my back hurt, so I couldn't be bothered.

On another occasion, also in Rome, I approached a group of Taxis near the Vatican for a short ride to a nearby location. I asked one of the drivers what the cost would be and he quoted an exorbitant, completely unreasonable number. I told him to pi$$ off and started to walk away. One of the other drivers called out and gave me a much more reasonable flat-rate price, which I accepted.

Despite these few negative experiences with Taxis, I still use them frequently when travelling in Europe and for the most part, the service and prices have been great. The RS guidebooks have good information on Taxis in areas where they might be "dodgy" and I always check that. Being properly informed goes a long way in avoiding problems.

Laurel,
I don't see Taxi.IT APP on my iPhone APP Store. I Googled for it and "it Taxi" appeared. "It Taxi" APP also appears on my iPhone APP Store. Would this be the APP you refer to in your post?

Whether or not a car is a necessity is dependent on where you live and what you do in your life.

I'm sure there are many people who live in rural places or smaller towns for whom a car is a necessity. If I lived downtown in a city with a small footprint, I wouldn't own any kind of vehicle. But for now, and for the foreseeable future, I can't imagine a time where private vehicles of varying types won't be a necessity for most of the US.

Personally, I live 26 miles from the nearest grocery store. The 1/2 mile closest to us is dirt. A car is not a luxury for us. It is a necessity. And I can't really imagine calling Uber to take me on my errands all over Tucson like a private driver. It typically would be well over 100 miles and many hours.

I also can't imagine hauling the race trailer without our big pickup, as I'm sure my neighbors couldn't imagine hauling their camping or horse trailers without a truck. There are many people who actually do things besides go from one place to another, something that requires owning vehicles that support what they do.

Curious about comparison costs for a round-trip between my house and the airport, I learned that taxis are the most expensive for me alone. A round trip ticket for the shuttle is exactly the same as parking for 30 days at an airport lot where covered parking is $4.00 per day. Although the online Uber estimate says the top fare would be $49 maximum one way, my estimate puts it closer to $50.50, without a tip or the time delays for the road construction between my house and the airport.

I'd also expect them to get lost and be late or maybe not find me because they'd be picking me up in the dark and because GPS gives incorrect information about this area.

For a one-way trip home from the airport, Uber would likely be the cheapest option and I could guide the driver along the way. But, for a round-trip I'd much rather pay the extra <= $19.00 to be able to go straight from my home to the airport, park the car and drive straight home from the airport when I return.

In October, I witnessed the pig headed response from an Uber driver in New Orleans who insisted that her GPS was saying she was at the right location to pick up our friend at our hotel. We could see her about a block away across a flat, grassy area and our friend was giving her directions to where we were. She couldnt be bothered to take her eyes off the screen and look out her window to see us waving or to see the street she needed to turn on to get to us. If it wasn't obvious on her screen, it didn't exist.

I have no problem with avoiding that, regardless of location or language. I have experienced some minor cheating from professional taxi drivers, mostly in the UK and not in Italy. But at this point I have more faith in them than in any casual drivers. Having said that, I'm most likely to use public transportation and my feet on my trip to Italy this summer.

Laurel,
I don't see Taxi.IT APP on my iPhone APP Store. I Googled for it and "it Taxi" appeared. "It Taxi" APP also appears on my iPhone APP Store. Would this be the APP you refer to in your post?

Sandra, yes. My error. In fact here are 063570 you can book online, learn how to SMS for a taxi, access teh call center, or explore the APP.

Nobody holds a gun to an uber driver's head and makes them drive.

Not always. A lot of drivers are suckered in by the make your own hours/supplemental income spiel Uber dishes out to recruit drivers. The reality is that a lot of drivers are in major league debt because of the cars they are forced to lease from a Uber owned subsidiary. Some economists label this arrangement predatory:

http://tinyurl.com/zh2a6om

WOW Laurel,
That's an Amazing link you just gave me! Thank You so much! Hoping that APP makes my life in Rome a lot easier!

Uber only has a small presence here in our capital city in Nova Scotia (or not - I see an article from April 2016 saying Halifax was going to stay uber free), but I think many people would like to see more. But I know a lot of people here get upset that taxis can only work in certain zones - many won't cross the bridge from Halifax to Dartmouth (if they don't have a fare for the way back, it's not worth it to them). Not to mention a few bad apple taxi drivers assaulting their inebriated female passengers...ugh.

Laurel, thanks for the tip about it.taxi. have downloaded it for my trip to Rome in a few weeks.