If somebody suggested a new preventative drug for a rare disease, and offered zero studies to back it up, and suggested everyone should be required to receive i

If somebody suggested a new preventative drug for a rare disease, and offered zero studies to back it up, and suggested everyone should be required to receive it, they would get laughed out of the room. Yet we still make public safety decisions on that kind of flimsy thinking all the time. Either new regulations improve outcomes or they don't. But we'll never find out by yelling at each other, or by taking a poll. Governments could conduct science-based regulation if they wanted to, especially when it comes to public health and safety -- areas where there is broad agreement on the desired outcomes, just disagreement on what will actually achieve those ends. Do these new regulations really improve safety? That's a testable hypothesis. (It seems unlikely that they do, given the low background rate of rideshare-driver crime. But I'm open to evidence.)