
Uber to suspend operations in Hungary due to govt legislation - vezycash
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-uber-hungary-exit-idUSKCN0ZT0RS
======
roschdal
Uber is also illegal in Norway, but somehow Uber keeps on doing the illegal
business continuing to break the law.

~~~
angry-hacker
Because they have the money and lawyers, so they can break the law.

They like to call it Disruptive Innovation or some other fancy term.

The problem with Uber is they think every country is the same and welcomes
them. I under that might be the case with U.S, but it doesn't mean taxi system
in every country is broken and they are welcomed to "fix it".

~~~
hueving
If the taxi system is not crap there, why are there citizens using Uber there?
Uber wouldn't be operating if people weren't using it.

~~~
nisa
It's cheaper because it socializes the costs - usually Taxi drivers have to
make a licence that involves knowledge of the area and likely other aptitude
tests, as well as maintenance of the cars and insurance. Then there are laws
that prevent working below a certain minimum income rate in Europe that also
affect Taxi drivers as most of them don't operate on their own.

Uber moves all these responsibilities to the owner of the car, now you are
your own business man you face the majority of risks and Uber still gets a big
chunk of profit. Uber doesn't care about your maintenance costs.

Sometimes it works, often this encourages dangerous behavior to still have
profits e.g. skipping maintenance, safe working times, vacation... Uber
doesn't care that much about this. A lot of people work almost full time
without enough compensation to warrant the stress.

Besides that European countries - at least the bigger cities - have often
excellent public transport that is inexpensive and mostly works. Taxis
supplement that and Uber is trying to compete on price there, something that
abuses the drivers in the long run.

I hope Uber is kept out of Europe or is regulated to protect the drivers and
users.

~~~
zzleeper
TBH, visiting non-uber cities is a complete pain in the ass for me; I would
prefer uber even at the same price.

The are less likely to rip you off, easier to catch (just press a button), to
keep a record on for reimbursements, to pay (by cc), etc.

~~~
cmarschner
>The are less likely to rip you off, easier to catch (just press a button), to
keep a record on for reimbursements, to pay (by cc), etc.

In Germany all this is provided by regular taxi services.

------
mark_l_watson
I used Uber recently for the first time recently in San Francisco and San
Diego (I was at the Decentralized Web and NAACL 2016 conferences) and I
thought Uber was a nice service. Each of the 8 times I used Uber I sat in the
front seat to talk with the driver. All 8 drivers were fairly upbeat about
being able to earn extra money whenever they had some free time. A few said
that it was their full time job.

I had a mild argument with my son about Uber (he is a fireman and a union
guy). He thinks that Uber is really unfair to union taxi drivers who jump
through some hoops to get licensed, etc. Besides wanting good service, I rate
businesses like these on how much profit is captured by the person doing the
work vs. the company that they work with. I don't have any data on this, so I
am judging Uber based on the low cost of shared ride service and the general
friendlyness of the drivers.

~~~
bsder
> I had a mild argument with my son about Uber (he is a fireman and a union
> guy). He thinks that Uber is really unfair to union taxi drivers who jump
> through some hoops to get licensed, etc.

I have multiple problems with ridesharing services:

1) They foist the risk off onto the contractors while keeping all the profit
themselves. They could have been a well-run national taxi company that
serviced suburbs (and would have had _STAUNCH_ defenders), but that won't get
you unicorn valuations.

2) Most of them are using VC money to subsidize the ride costs. This is fine--
until they run out of money. Then the cities will be left to pick up the
pieces when suddenly there aren't enough taxi drivers anymore to service the
demand. Uber and Lyft actually tried to use this as leverage in Austin to get
their way politically. So, the threat is not theoretical. These companies are
not trying to service the customer; they are trying to become the taxi
monopoly.

3) Uber/Lyft/etc. drivers often don't comply with local laws surrounding
carriage services. This includes licensing and insurance but also includes
simple things like "Where in the airport am I allowed to pick someone up?" I
have had a not-insignificant fraction of drivers who simply don't know where
they are going--especially if "surge pricing" pulled them in from an area
outside their usual haunts.

4) I have a problem with Uber, specifically. It seems like it's run by a bunch
of nasty, rich, party boys and their treatment of people they regard as
beneath them is absolutely disgusting.

I like the fact that the ridesharing services have forced most cities to start
issuing more taxi permits. I like the fact that the ridesharing services
function in the suburbs where taxis won't go(mostly--I have had some misses).
I like the ridesharing services when they lobby for laws attempting to break
the taxi monopolies.

So, my verdict is still out.

(Edited: I can haz English. Sheesh, my grammar is starting to suck.)

~~~
bllguo
I have no opinion on Uber leadership coming into this, and would just like to
see some elaboration on point 4?

I certainly would agree that there are companies with leadership teams as you
describe, so I'm not opposed to that notion. Just wondering about this
specific case.

~~~
vitd
I can give 2 examples:

1) They had a big party a couple of years ago where they had a large display
that showed where several famous tech people were at the very moment in Uber
cars. They did this without notifying or getting permission from said
people[0],[1].

2) They rented the building next to ours for training. We rent several parking
spaces in the lot on the other side of our building from the city. They
repeatedly parked in our reserved spots and told their drivers to park there
even after repeatedly being told they were reserved (purchased by us) and not
to park there. They would literally move their cars, wait 5 minutes, then move
them back. During breaks they would stand in front of the door to our building
smoking and acting surly as if to try to intimidate us. I don't know how high
up the management chain our people went, but it was clear they weren't going
to do anything about it. Eventually our neighbor kicked them out!

[0] [http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/04/opinion/schneier-uber-
privacy-...](http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/04/opinion/schneier-uber-privacy-
issue/index.html) [1] [http://www.cnet.com/news/god-view-under-spotlight-as-
uber-in...](http://www.cnet.com/news/god-view-under-spotlight-as-uber-
investigation-intensifies/#)!

------
brudgers
A more detailed report:
[http://www.portfolio.hu/en/economy/uber_set_to_pull_out_of_h...](http://www.portfolio.hu/en/economy/uber_set_to_pull_out_of_hungary_portal.31571.html)

HN discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12086041](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12086041)

------
vkou
Article is light on what it would take for Uber to be compliant as a legal
dispatcher service.

~~~
the_mitsuhiko
> Article is light on what it would take for Uber to be compliant as a legal
> dispatcher service.

Typically the problems are: a) surge pricing b) rates that do not follow the
government set rates c) refusing service to certain customers d) no mandatory
insurances e) do not accept cash payments in cars.

~~~
greyman
Or, their drivers needs to be licensed taxi drivers, and they are not.

For example in Slovakia, the law states quite clearly, that if you provide
road transportation for other people as a business, then if your car has more
than 9 seats, you are operating a bus service, and if it has 9 or less, you
are operating a taxi, and must follow all regulations applied to taxi drivers.
But Uber says they are not a taxi, despite operating almost exactly like one.
:-)

For example, we have other popular taxi service, which also has a smartphone
app working very similarly to Uber, with the one exception, that they only
accept professional taxi drivers as their drivers. So if they wanted, Uber
could do the same and be perfectly legal, but they apparently don't want to.

~~~
the_mitsuhiko
> Or, their drivers needs to be licensed taxi drivers, and they are not.

I can't talk about Hungary but in Austria an uber driver could not be a
licensed taxi driver or at least, it does not matter. However for sure an uber
cannot be a taxi because uber has no chance to follow those regulations and
restrictions without giving up their business model.

> For example in Slovakia, the law states quite clearly, that if you provide
> road transportation for other people as a business, then if your car has
> more than 9 seats, you are operating a bus service, and if it has 9 or less,
> you are operating a taxi, and must follow all regulations applied to taxi
> drivers.

That's not how it works in Austria and I'm sure that's not how it works in
Hungary. In Austria there are two regulations: taxis and personal drivers. The
latter is what uber currently follows. It's a car with a driver that cannot
pick up customers from the street who are hailing and it must not be equipped
with a taximeter.

> For example, we have other popular taxi service, which also has a smartphone
> app working very similarly to Uber, with the one exception, that they only
> accept professional taxi drivers as their drivers.

Uber is not just great because of the app but also because the drivers are
rated, the customers are rated and with the surge pricing there is a chance to
get a taxi when it's needed. Try getting a taxi in Vienna at rush hour. You
can't, because nobody cares extra since you get just as much money there as
you do normally but you are stuck in traffic, so there are fewer taxis on the
road.

------
jokoon
Sometimes my former socialist self whispers to me that the US is annexing the
whole world through its companies. Then I realize that's a simple thought that
is hard to dispel.

------
davidf18
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.

~~~
yladiz
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
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
> 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
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
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/)

------
joering2
I wonder when US gov will take a deeper look at Uber.

It is not only taxi and public transportation laws around the country they
"disturb"; I still receive spammy emails they continue to send, and even
Sendgrid is fully in bed with them.

I forwarded spam to Sendgrid and they said they will follow up with Uber (so
apparently they are Uber's customer support at this point - great!) The
spamming practice never changed or stopped despite Sendgrid telling me they
will send my email to them (!!) to unsubscribe me from their list, when I
didn't even subscribe in the first place.

As I received more Uber spam I kept updating Sendgrid ticked (zendesk).
Eventually some 2 weeks later they closed it as "resolved" and never replied
to my emails again. I still get Uber Spam from Sendgrid. Stay away from them
as long as you can (both Uber and Sendgrid)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-
SPAM_Act_of_2003](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003)

