[cssmoo]

Every time someone kicks Uber down, all it does is make me more sympathetic to their business. I've had nothing but expensive, shit service with no recourse or customer support from official regulated services. They operate like the government does in the film Brazil.

[anon1385]

It's not evil government regulations that leads to Uber drivers being uninsured. It's private insurance companies who, aware of the greater risks, don't cover commercial driving as part of their regular insurance policies.

So it's a case of the free insurance market working correctly to price risk, and Uber coming in and shitting all over that and effectively asking for governments to legislate to exclude Uber drivers from the normal insurance market by allowing them to drive commercially without commercial insurance.

If Uber gets their way it would mean jacking up insurance prices for everybody and making the insurance market far less efficient. Why should wider society pay to insure Uber drivers just to make Uber more profitable?

[analyst74]

Down in this thread someone posted a link about drivers are covered by Uber insurance while using the Uber app.

https://help.uber.com/h/3c76c923-3818-4330-a0a1-b5fc9310ed39

Isn't this enough to replace commercial insurance?

[DanBC]

That is only America, and only ride-sharing.

https://help.uber.com/h/f7fbe4af-c0db-4406-9ee5-59613b38a84e

> There are a number of insurance providers that offer policies for ridesharing. Uber recommends working with your insurance agent to find a plan that works for you.

> For US ridesharing partners only, please note that although the Rasier policy will act as primary insurance while you are using the Uber Partner app, keep in mind that all partners must also carry personal auto insurance.

[aikah]

while Uber is useful, let's not kid ourselves. they are just new middlemen replacing the old ones.

I just can't bear Uber arrogance as they think they can just violate local laws because they are "useful".There is no justification for that.

While there may be a specific mindset regarding the law in US, most European countries do not work that way at all. French regulators will come very hard on Uber if they think they can just ignore laws.

[Karunamon]

It's pretty impossible having a centralized dispatch service that anyone can join without there being a "middleman" of some kind. Someone's got to write the software and vet the drivers, after all.

I love Uber's arrogance. The local laws being violated are more often than not the product of regulatory capture, inefficient processes, and antiquated eras. The regulators have been whining like crazy about "unsafe drivers" and all sorts of other downright libelous nonsense that it takes nothing short of flouting the rules to disprove, to say "It turns out that when we ignore the regulators, the world doesn't actually end after all, and in some cases actually gets better" - a valuable lesson for business and everyperson alike.

No person with power likes being ignored, so you get actions like this. Petty tyrants, retaliating at the slight. That's how I see the governments in this case.

[aikah]

> I love Uber's arrogance.

And I love them getting bitch slapped by european regulators as they fail to understand the "european mindset". This isn't the farwest here.

[eruditely]

Uber is doing a productive thing and reduces the number of fatalities and drunk driving deaths. You are obviously stuck in some state of acute infantilism of perceiving dominance games when we should be talking about the results.

[aikah]

The result is Uber getting sanctionned over their predatory behavior in Europe. I don't care what Uber does since it's mostly illegal in France.

A private corporation does not get to make the laws. If they want to change the law they need to respect it at first place then join the democratic process ,end of story.

[forrestthewoods]

"they need to respect it at first place then join the democratic process"

Except clearly they don't. The democratic process is broken. Politicians have no incentive to change laws. Uber's modus operandi is to ignore those laws and build strong public support to force change. It works very well. Uber is happy. Joe public is happy. And politicians can pass new regulations shockingly quick when their job is on the line.

[eruditely]

If drunk driving deaths are reduced then it's worth it.

[dilap]

I sorrrrrt of see where you're coming from, but in my experiences Uber/Lyft are just way, way better in almost every way than the taxis they are replacing. Including safety. (Though it would be interesting to see stats on this; do they exist?)

If the reality on the ground conflicts with the theory behind the laws, the laws should change. Nothing wrong with helping to make that happen by a little calculated disobedience in my opinion.

[forrestthewoods]

There is absolutely justification. Local laws are unnecessarily causing harm to consumers. Uber is blatantly ignoring those laws to get consumers on their side. This leads to the laws changing.

Seattle's broken ass cab system proposed creating a ride hailing app a few years ago. They were stopped because no one was willing to update laws. Then Uber and Lyft came in. Those laws have now been changed and the old, broken system is being allowed to update to become slightly less shitty. It's still awful though.

Uber plays a dangerous game. They know the risks. They're willing to take them. I have zero issues with this. I do have issues with anti-consumer regulations that primarily exist to protect entrenched business owners.

[anon1385]

More accurately:

Uninsured Uber drivers are causing harm to other road users. Uber is blatantly ignoring the law to make more money at the expense of the rest of society. This leads to Uber getting punished by the courts. No laws need changing.

[JonFish85]

Uber plays a dangerous game and knows the risks, sure. What about the consumers? They're getting into vehicles that are probably underinsured. Do they know the risks? If they are involved in some sort of accident, do they realize that Uber is going to wash their hands of the incident and point at the "independent contractor"?

[Loughla]

Do you honestly think it's fair and a good idea to break the law, if you believe it's in the consumer's best interest?

[DanBC]

How do you know the local law for every territory where Uber operates?

Because in London Uber could very easily obey the law but they chose not to.

[eloisant]

The problem in a nutshell is that the current laws are bad for consumers, but they're not changing because of lobbying.

That's why many people are happy to see Uber kicking the anthill. What Uber unlocks, others (like Lyft) benefit too.

[twoodfin]

I was in Orlando, Florida a couple of weeks ago, where the city government has outlawed charging less than a minimum per-mile fare some 3x what UberX charges:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/breaking-news/os-uber-ta...

Of course, UberX drivers are still out there saving people money over the virtual monopoly held there by big cab companies like Mears. From Uber's point of view, I can't see why not. Every ticket the city issues for being too cheap is a PR win for them.

[saiya-jin]

that's what happens with long-term monopoly. although I don't use taxis at all, I grow more sympathies every time somebody fights them too. They're disruptive force, good for customers, bad for those unionized drivers afraid of competition. we as potential customers can only gain in more competitive environment.