[ElComradio]

Two drivers approach you.

Driver A: "I'll get you there for $10. If I crash, you don't get to sue Uber, just me."

Driver B: "I'll get you there for $15. If I crash, you can go after Uber."

As the customer, do you believe I should have the right to choose between these two options? Or do you believe I should be forced to choose B every time?

[x0x0]

Yes, I think it's fine for you to be forced to choose B. Because when people get hurt, someone pays. And if uber doesn't pay, and the driver doesn't pay, society does. Hurt passengers would have their medical problems paid for by their insurance or by all of us through taxes.

In CA, you have to have insurance to drive a car. It would be cheaper for you not to have insurance, but most people don't have the money to make things right when they get into an accident. This is exactly analogous.

[ElComradio]

Nowhere in the example was the condition that the driver is not insured.

Outside of that, I find this attitude incredibly patronizing. "We need to save you from yourself" is what it boils down to. You pay somebody for a ride knowing she's not insured? That's _your_ problem, not mine.

[x0x0]

until you get hurt without insurance and we end up paying for you