[th4dv]

> Regulations usually exist for good reasons

It's just a very small group of people telling everyone else what's good for them. I have a better idea - create regulations that "protect the innocent" but at the same time allow people to opt-out from such "protection" and use whatever transportation service they fucking please (but at their own risk).

[TeMPOraL]

It sounds fine at first glance, but it's actually ignoring two important points.

1. In this case, there's no opting out of personal protection without endangering innocents - as long as you're using public transportation infrastructure (i.e. roads), an unmaintained and/or uninsured car is a danger to others. There is public interest in ensuring such cars do not drive alongside regular traffic.

2. Such "protection" through enforcement of some minimal standards is a cost; if you remove that floor, the market will push straight down. What you intend as a voluntary opt-out mode will become involuntary, as prices adjusts to reflect the added costs of those standards. In other words, it's not just those who're willingly opting out that will be using "unprotected" services, but also those who can't afford the "protection" but need the service.

Point 2 can be also restated as: safety standards are a cost, the market will happily get rid of it (by externalizing them onto society at large) if you allow it to.

[Zak]

an unmaintained and/or uninsured car is a danger to others

In most jurisdictions, it is illegal to drive a car without a specific level of insurance or with safety-related maintenance issues independent of whether it is being used for some commercial purpose.

[TeMPOraL]

Commercially used cars have different insurance and maintenance standards; this was one of many issues with Uber - drivers lacking proper insurance.

[vertex-four]

Most personal insurances will not pay out if they discover that you were driving for commercial purposes, as there is a different risk profile for commercial drivers.

[IanCal]

How would this work with taxis? Do I need to research every taxi I hail to find out if they meet reasonable safety standards?

[BearGoesChirp]

And we end up with almost every single contract including the opt out language. The majority of people don't read contracts, and many of those who do have no access to recourse to do anything other than walking away from the entire field of services. (While in theory the market should fix this by having service offers without those clauses that people who read their contract and walk away from bad ones can use, the total number who are willing to walk away are far too smaller.)

For example, look at arbitration in the US.

Want a retirement account? Arbitration clause.

Bank account? Arbitration clause.

Cell phone contract? Arbitration clause.

Insurance? Arbitration clause.

Online video game account? Arbitration clause.

And most people don't realize how one sided these are until they end up on the wrong end of the legal system.

[th4dv]

> the total number who are willing to walk away are far too smaller

Because people are too lazy to walk away from a bad deal or simply don't want to read the contract they're about to sign is a really poor justification.

[BearGoesChirp]

My point there is that so few do that the market doesn't respond to capture those who do so. The justification isn't about why, it is about the money in capturing them. Making an offer for people who want to buy cell phones without arbitration, and advertising it so those people know about the option, won't cause a positive return on investment and as such doesn't happen. It is a comment on why 'just go buy from someone who doesn't do it' isn't a solution.

[linkregister]

Look at th5dv, who doesn't have any Apple or Google accounts, or use a major U.S. mobile phone carrier. Otherwise, he has agreed to a binding arbitration clause.

[vertex-four]

Is it really being lazy to not want to go without a bank account?

[tripzilch]

if you think it's about being too lazy that says a LOT more about you than them.

[th4dv]

Making a personal remark on someone just because (presumably) they have a different opinion on certain matters is pretty low.

[kuschku]

German taxis actually allow that.

Services that are technically "rent a car with a driver" can operate like taxis, but not do on-street pickup.

Only regulations: Needs driver license, needs insurance.

[oblio]

That doesn't work. It's been tried, some people are just too stupid and they'll hurt themselves and complain about it.

By your logic we shouldn't regulate smoking or guns or a million other things we regulate, for good reason.

[TeMPOraL]

> some people are just too stupid and they'll hurt themselves and complain about it

It's not just about stupid people. It's also about people who get deceived by marketing (i.e. all of us, in some way, at some point). It's also about the market adjusting prices so that the unsafe option will be the only option available for some people, while true costs are externalized onto society.

But the point still is, as you say, we regulate a lot of things for good reason.

[th4dv]

> It's also about the market adjusting prices

Yes, but it'll work the other way around - the "safe option" will become cheaper, otherwise services that provide it will go out of business. What makes you think that "unsafe option will be the only option available for some people". Feels a bit like you're demonising the free market.

[th4dv]

> some people are just too stupid and they'll hurt themselves and complain about it

stupid people will hurt them self, one way or another. You can't protect people from their own stupidity by introducing more and more regulations. Soon, you won't be able to purchase a kitchen knife.

[oblio]

Just to give an example that kind of goes against what you were saying: cars were invented and at first there were not that many regulations.

Now we have:

- speed limits

- car making regulations

- fuel regulations

- ...

And 99% of those rules are good for society as a whole.

Regulation isn't bad in and of itself, abuse of regulation is. Focus on the real target ;)