>No, that's not a fair assessment at all - the evidence doesn't bear that out. Just because the government isn't doing the regulating doesn't mean there is no regulation. Uber at the very least does background/license checks, and the aforementioned ongoing quality rating. It's not a free-for-all.
I have no idea what lengths Uber goes to, but it's irrelevant. You're espousing self regulation. What happens when the next Uber competitor decides upon a different, perhaps less stringent, standard? This is why these regulations exist on the first place. The whole thing is coming full circle.
1. Unregulated service arises
2. People use said service, gains critical mass.
3. Service excludes/endangers part of the population.
4. Service is regulated by the government
5. Eventually, regulations become burdensome and are either lifted or circumvented.
That's a bit slippery slope for my taste (2 does not necessarily lead to 3), but in this particular case, pretty much.
..Except I'd argue that the people champing at the bit to sue/ban/regulate Uber are doing so either out of annoyance (politicos annoyed that their regs are being flouted) or greed (competitors upset that they're being undercut), with the "safety" issue being nothing more than a convenient pretext.
They are not demonstrably less safe than the "regulated" livery services.
I somewhat agree with you - but then there's the insurance and license question.
I admit that I'm not a fan of that company and couldn't care less about their service. But IF (I don't know. Not a lawyer, no expert) the majority of their drivers aren't covered by their insurance in case of 'commercial' accidents, then yes! they are far less safe than regulated services.
On top of that Germany (because that's what the thread started out with) requires people to have a special driving license (That is NOT a taxi license. If you drive a bus or anything where you transport people from A to B for money, you're supposed to have that extended license). And that is a good thing. It checks (every 5 years, because that thing expires) that
- you're fit (physically.. Think "My eyes aren't what they used to be, but hey .. I can still drive"
- your police record (you can request a file/except of your police record and you have to turn that in for this application)
- you know the area
It also limits this license to people >= 21 years old that have their license for > 2 years.
So, we're having two things here (ignoring all the "But it's faster, cheaper, more convenient" crap) that relate to safety:
1) IF the drivers aren't insured, you are screwed. That is less safe, demonstrably so.
2) Given that those drivers probably don't have that commercial license: I'd say they aren't vetted as good as the taxi drivers. This is a bit more mushy, but I'd still consider this 'less safe' and the list above points out why.
Obviously 2) is specific to Germany, but 1) is a global concern, as far as I understand?
Sure, this is completely within the context of this discussion. I'm not saying that Uber is bad, what I'm saying is that a bad actor will eventually crop up, which leads to regulation.
I have no idea what lengths Uber goes to, but it's irrelevant. You're espousing self regulation. What happens when the next Uber competitor decides upon a different, perhaps less stringent, standard? This is why these regulations exist on the first place. The whole thing is coming full circle.
1. Unregulated service arises
2. People use said service, gains critical mass.
3. Service excludes/endangers part of the population.
4. Service is regulated by the government
5. Eventually, regulations become burdensome and are either lifted or circumvented.
6. Goto 2