[rodgerd]

> Uber demonstrates that regulation is unnecessary and generally harmful, and typically only exists to rip off consumers.

And then to "prove" your point you completely ignore the case I discussed, presumably because it doesn't fit your pre-canned rant which would look more at home, frankly, on /r/hailcorporate.

> So again, the simple question: what problems that currently exist would regulation solve?

The one where I'd like to have a commercial driver held to the standard of passing a police background check, a heightened demonstration of driving competence, and a properly maintained vehicle, none of which I see any evidence of Uber particularly caring about.

Or the one where they appear to be criminal fraudsters? http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/06/uber-hired-inve...

[yummyfajitas]

Here's evidence that Uber cares about all those things in New Zealand:

http://auckland.ubermovement.com/uberx/

http://auckland.ubermovement.com/required-documents/

It looks as if your proposed regulation is not solving a real problem. Personal attacks don't change this.

I'm all in favor of regulation where it makes sense. If there's a problem that can demonstrably solved by regulation, I'm all in favor of it. But this hardly seems to be one of those situations.

[sokoloff]

Where are these places where taxi drivers have a heightened demonstration of driving competence and vehicles better maintained than Ubers?

Around here (metro Boston), I can be virtually certain that the cab will have at least warning light on the dash, have wheel bearings that audibly rattle, and the driver doesn't strike me as someone who has gone to extensive training nor seem to have a superior awareness of the traffic laws nor common traffic courtesies.