5 ms·

Uber and Lyft are also effectively banned in the 3rd world country of Austin, Texas, USA. Uber/Lyft/Gett are very useful. Can't imagine why Hungary and Austin

Uber and Lyft are also effectively banned in the 3rd world country of Austin, Texas, USA. Uber/Lyft/Gett are very useful. Can't imagine why Hungary and Austin don't want them.

TheBolivianNavy 10y ago
They aren't banned in Austin. They left rather than comply with the law. Other companies still operate. You can debate whether or not the law is a good law but they certainly weren't forced to leave.
toomuchtodo 10y ago
> Can't imagine why Hungary and Austin don't want them. Because they operate in violation of local laws.
yladiz 10y ago
They didn't get banned in Austin, they didn't want to fingerprint their drivers and pushed for legislation that specifically excluded them from a law. The city of Austin even tried to work with them, offering to front the cost, set up mobile fingerprinting stations, but they rejected this stating it would be too high of a barrier for their drivers, and when the vote came in against Uber/Lyft on Proposition 1 they decided to leave. In other words, in the specific case of Austin, they acted like spoiled children when they didn't get their way and made it so no one can benefit from their services in the city.
- davidf18 10y ago
  I said effectively banned and what I meant was because of the unusual and onerous requirement of fingerprinting drivers when other cities such as NYC (where I live and which is far more dangerous than Austin) has no such requirement, nor apparently, does any other major US city since I've taken Uber/Lyft in a number of them.
  - yladiz 10y ago
    > unusual and onerous requirement of fingerprinting drivers Maybe it is unusual because it's not common in other cities, but let's not pretend it's onerous. Austin really tried to work with Uber/Lyft on this, such as offering to pay for the fingerprinting or have mobile fingerprinting stations, and Uber/Lyft still didn't like the idea because it would likely mean that other cities would see it as an example. And it's also not fair to say that it's even effectively banned because it's a law that's not difficult to work within.
    - davidf18 10y ago
      If NYC, Boston, LA, Chicago, DC, SF, Las Vegas, and other major cities across the country didn't require fingerprinting then it was unreasonable and according to my view, "onerous" in terms of the implications. There is no reason except restraint of trade that Austin would need this fingerprinting when other larger and far more dangerous cities have done fine without it.
      - jhayward 10y ago
        I would like to direct your attention to the "principle of charity" suggestion that @dang recommends commenters use when evaluating discussion. By asserting facially false facts (NYC does indeed require fingerprinting[1]), and then attributing malice ("no reason except trade restraint") to Austin's referendum results your reply violates that principle in my opinion. [1] http://driveubernyc.com/tlc-license-checklist/ http://driveubernyc.com/tlc-license-checklist/
  - jhayward 10y ago
    What on earth are you talking about? Uber drivers in NYC have far, far more onerous requirements - including fingerprinting, drug testing, and a medical exam [1]. [1] http://driveubernyc.com/tlc-license-checklist/ http://driveubernyc.com/tlc-license-checklist/
jhayward 10y ago
Since you know very well they weren't banned in Austin, and in fact the city council spent a great deal of time and money trying to keep them here, perhaps you have some substantive point to make?

Uber and Lyft are also effectively banned in the 3rd world country of Austin, Texas, USA. Uber/Lyft/Gett are very useful. Can't imagine why Hungary and Austin don't want them.

TheBolivianNavy 10y ago

They aren't banned in Austin. They left rather than comply with the law. Other companies still operate. You can debate whether or not the law is a good law but they certainly weren't forced to leave.

toomuchtodo 10y ago

> Can't imagine why Hungary and Austin don't want them. Because they operate in violation of local laws.

yladiz 10y ago

They didn't get banned in Austin, they didn't want to fingerprint their drivers and pushed for legislation that specifically excluded them from a law. The city of Austin even tried to work with them, offering to front the cost, set up mobile fingerprinting stations, but they rejected this stating it would be too high of a barrier for their drivers, and when the vote came in against Uber/Lyft on Proposition 1 they decided to leave. In other words, in the specific case of Austin, they acted like spoiled children when they didn't get their way and made it so no one can benefit from their services in the city.

davidf18 10y ago
I said effectively banned and what I meant was because of the unusual and onerous requirement of fingerprinting drivers when other cities such as NYC (where I live and which is far more dangerous than Austin) has no such requirement, nor apparently, does any other major US city since I've taken Uber/Lyft in a number of them.
- yladiz 10y ago
  > unusual and onerous requirement of fingerprinting drivers Maybe it is unusual because it's not common in other cities, but let's not pretend it's onerous. Austin really tried to work with Uber/Lyft on this, such as offering to pay for the fingerprinting or have mobile fingerprinting stations, and Uber/Lyft still didn't like the idea because it would likely mean that other cities would see it as an example. And it's also not fair to say that it's even effectively banned because it's a law that's not difficult to work within.
  - davidf18 10y ago
    If NYC, Boston, LA, Chicago, DC, SF, Las Vegas, and other major cities across the country didn't require fingerprinting then it was unreasonable and according to my view, "onerous" in terms of the implications. There is no reason except restraint of trade that Austin would need this fingerprinting when other larger and far more dangerous cities have done fine without it.
    - jhayward 10y ago
      I would like to direct your attention to the "principle of charity" suggestion that @dang recommends commenters use when evaluating discussion. By asserting facially false facts (NYC does indeed require fingerprinting[1]), and then attributing malice ("no reason except trade restraint") to Austin's referendum results your reply violates that principle in my opinion. [1] http://driveubernyc.com/tlc-license-checklist/ http://driveubernyc.com/tlc-license-checklist/
- jhayward 10y ago
  What on earth are you talking about? Uber drivers in NYC have far, far more onerous requirements - including fingerprinting, drug testing, and a medical exam [1]. [1] http://driveubernyc.com/tlc-license-checklist/ http://driveubernyc.com/tlc-license-checklist/

jhayward 10y ago

Since you know very well they weren't banned in Austin, and in fact the city council spent a great deal of time and money trying to keep them here, perhaps you have some substantive point to make?