> Secondary costs of disruption (the negative kind) of transportation market due to one player outcompeting other by acting illegally and getting away with it.

> Secondary costs of disruption (the negative kind) of transportation market due to one player outcompeting other by acting illegally and getting away with it. This is circular logic. Your only argument seems to be that uber may not actually require insurance. That may be true, but it's also easy to fix. >try getting an Uber as a grandma living on the outskirts Where I live (Warsaw), they just introduced a "leaving the city" fee, which means the drivers are incentivised to take those trips. And it still probably comes out about as much as a taxi.