>They were classified as limos. I said I disagree with that. It's not some great conspiracy to target Uber, it's an application of the law. Would you rather the

>They were classified as limos. I said I disagree with that. It's not some great conspiracy to target Uber, it's an application of the law. Would you rather they get lumped in with Taxi's and forced to follow all those regs? No, I'd rather the local governments get their heads out of their asses and enact some sensible regulation instead of trying to kill the golden goose that's finally giving people a service that actually works well and that they like to use, unlike the taxis, and at a price that's affordable, unlike limos. Uber is a great thing, but it's in uncharted territory regulation-wise and does need some regulation to make sure that employees (yes, that's what they are when they work for you) are treated fairly, that issues about insurance are known and consistent, etc. I don't see anyone attempting to do this at all. >I don't support letting them just jump into the market and do what they want. What's your alternative? The problem is that governments actively refuse to govern properly, and instead work to protect incumbents. If Uber waited around for good regulations to be enacted, they'd be waiting decades, if it got done at all (in reality, it wouldn't). The only way to force governments to act is to do what they've done. As the old saying goes, "it's better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission". There's a reason this saying came about: if you ask permission, most likely you'll be told "no", because people (especially organizations, and most especially governments) hate change. If you go and do it anyway, then the other parties just have to deal with it and are forced to work with you.