[gnopgnip]

They are shifting all of the liability to the people who can least afford it. So far they have done everything in their power to not protect drivers like in the case last month. http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Uber-denies-fault-in-S... An uber driver killed a girl, but Uber is claiming they are not liable because he did not have an active fare at the time. It is unlikely this driver can ever make the family whole.

Additionally many car sharing services are operating without regard to the law. In some states the cars are getting seized. So far Uber has been covering the legal case, but they have no obligation to continue to do so.

[blocktuw]

Not to say that Uber does not have questionable ethics, but I think your two examples are wrong. Uber is now insuring their drivers as long as they are logged into the app. http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/14/5508568/uber-expands-drive...

The car seizure you reference was in Belgium for a service that technically complies with local laws according to Uber and they are providing legal assistance to the two owners of the seized cars. http://tech.eu/news/screw-innovation-uber-already-deemed-ill...

You mention that so far Uber is covering the legal costs without an obligation to do so. So that makes them bad?

[gnopgnip]

So Uber is saying their insurance will cover 125k? This is not an adequate amount of coverage, and they are still shifting any liability away from the company, onto people who cannot afford the consequences. Who pays in a tragedy like this?

There have been many car seizures in the US and abroad. Many of these independent contractors do not have the resources to fight a legal battle without the help of Uber.