[briandear]

I would rather they shut down to protest the regulation. Consenting adults should be entitled to their own risk assessment. The government need not regulate everything. Over regulation is what led to the taxi monopolies. If people didn't feel safe in Uber, they weren't forced to use it. It isn't like school buses or teachers where there aren't other easy alternatives. If an Uber driver was unsafe, the market would correct for that. Are AirBnB hosts fingerprinted? Are hotel employees required to be fingerprinted? Hotel employees could enter your room and kill you while sleeping -- how is that any different than the risk posed by a rogue Uber driver?

[CamperBob2]

Better still, ignore the regulation, keep operating, and force the courts to decide.

[studentrob]

Burning through VC money in the process? That's a risky move. Uber follows fingerprinting procedures in NYC and Houston, why not Austin? It seems to me Uber/Lyft are better off coming to the negotiation table to discuss a way forward.

[CamperBob2]

It's a lot riskier for the VCs to allow regulations like this to stand. Fingerprinting might be tolerable by itself, but this isn't really about fingerprinting, of course. Every major city whose regulators are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the taxi operators will come up with additional random expensive hoops to jump through, repeating as necessary until the competitor is run out of town. Anyone attempting to confront the incumbents with an innovative new service will suffer the death of a thousand cuts.

(Which, of course, will eventually work to Uber's advantage, just like it did for the taxi companies. At which point the hero has lived long enough to see himself become the proverbial villain.)

No, it's better to take a stand and fight these people head on. It's not OK to force every new business to decide whether it's safer to ask permission first or apologize later.

[studentrob]

U/L's position is not clear. Why operate with different rules in NYC? If they could articulate their desired policy to the public, maybe they'd find more support in Austin.

[bsder]

> If people didn't feel safe in Uber, they weren't forced to use it.

Except that Uber is using venture capital money to subsidize rides to undercut the price of rides.

That's great, until they drive the properly compliant ride services out of business and become their own monopoly.

Keeping the ridesharing services market share fractured instead of monopoly is what really benefits the consumer.

[studentrob]

You're not wrong. Uber operates where I live in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, and rides are dirt cheap. They cost $2-$3 when a taxi is $3-$5.

Both Uber and AirBNB have been ruled illegal in Taiwan. Uber continues to operate and pays the fines of drivers and passengers when they are caught. If a driver is caught 5 times, their license is permanently revoked [1]

I like the idea of ride sharing apps, and I can respect Uber's attempts to try some civil disobedience. I don't think this investment will pan out for them. Taiwan just elected a new government that is even more focused on Taiwan-centric businesses than the last government. Uber would need to generate a lot of public support to become an exception. I don't see that happening. I see VC money flowing in and staying here. And like Austin, a legal competitor will pop up eventually with services that satisfy the public enough that they forget about Uber.

I could be wrong. It seems to me Uber doesn't have much left up its sleeves. They seem primed to accept that there are many viable competitors.

[1] http://international.thenewslens.com/article/36548