5 ms·

Individuals can freely choose a taxi cab over Uber if insurance is a concern for them. Individuals who are not concerned with insurance may find that they shou

Individuals can freely choose a taxi cab over Uber if insurance is a concern for them. Individuals who are not concerned with insurance may find that they should have been. Governments should not make it their job to protect individuals from every bad choice they could make. Why is this concept which is so simple so terribly hard to grasp?

EliRivers 13y ago
You just choose to draw the line in a different place. I bet you still draw the line.
JonFish85 13y ago
"Governments should not make it their job to protect individuals from every bad choice they could make." Essentially, one role of government is to step in when there are harmful things being done to people. This author seems to argue that this is exactly why some things are regulated, and argues that their "competitors" (probably not the right term) should fall under the same rules: hotels, taxis, etc. Personally I agree that the government's job isn't to protect people from their own stupid choices, but it's a big grey area of where to draw that line.
obvious01 13y ago
No they can't. Sure, they can make a decision, but it won't be a informed one. Most people are unaware that Uber drivers are questionably insured. They don't read HackerNews or ArsTechnica, or even WSJ, NYT. Moreover, Uber doesn't advertise that fact on their website or in their smartphone apps. So it is impossible for an uninformed customer to make such a decision in the first place.
michaelt 13y ago
Individuals can freely choose a taxi cab over Uber if insurance is a concern for them. People hit by Uber drivers with invalid insurance don't get a free choice in the matter. And if higher numbers of uninsured drivers drive up premiums for regular motorists, they don't a free choice either. This is what economists call an externality [1]. A voluntary transaction that looks good to the two parties who have a choice in the matter, but which imposes a cost on a third party who doesn't have a choice. If I own an apartment and the apartment next door gets sold to an investor who rents it out on AirBnB for nightly loud parties, eroding my property's value, that's the same thing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality
- Houshalter 13y ago
  Liability insurance is required for all drivers, not just taxis. If the driver didn't have insurance, he was violating the law regardless. The fact he was operating a taxi service has nothing to do with anything. License plate readers could trivially identify cars on the road without insurance if it's a huge problem.
  - JonFish85 13y ago
    But as a company who employs these drivers, shouldn't at least part of the onus be on them to ensure that their drivers meet these requirements? In the same way that Uber/taxi companies have to ensure that their drivers have a license, shouldn't they also have to make sure he had adequate insurance?
    - stickfigure 13y ago
      Drivers are not employees of Uber. Before you say "that's just a technicality" consider also that freelancers are not employees of 99designs.com, freelancer.com, or crowdspring.com - even though that's how they negotiate and get paid for work. The idea of a clearinghouse for matching freelance drivers and customers is something new.
    - sneak 13y ago
      > But as a company who employs these drivers, shouldn't at least part of the onus be on them to ensure that their drivers meet these requirements? No, it is the job of law enforcement to enforce laws. Uber should fire drivers that are known to be breaking the law, sure, but requiring that they screen up-front for lawbreakers is the same as requiring drug testing or other such nonsense.
  - sharemywin 13y ago
    the insurance company won't cover it because it's personal insurance not commercial insurance. Personal insurance isn't priced on people driving around in their cars all day.
bowlofpetunias 13y ago
Governments in democracies work in service of the people, and when the people want the government to protect them collectively instead of having to fend for themselves individually, that is what the government does. If the people want some protection from being exploited by ruthless companies, that's what they get. An gee, what surprise, most people don't want to spend their days looking over their shoulders and constantly having to be concerned with every little detail for fear of getting screwed. They just want to get from A to B in the certainty that in a civilized, well-organised society these things are properly arranged. Why is this concept which is so simple so terribly hard to grasp?
codyb 13y ago
I think it is because it is an attempt to break down a terribly complex system into a set of simple rules which simply do not factor in all of the externalities of day to day life in societies featuring tens of millions of independent actors.
rayiner 13y ago
Insurance mandates exist to protect the people hit by cars, not the drivers of the cars. As a general principle, businesses should bear the cost of the externalized risk they create. If you run a taxi business, which is what Uber does regardless of how you try to lawyer your way around the definition of "taxi," then you should bear the cost of insuring against the inevitable collisions and accidents that arise from your business.

EliRivers 13y ago

You just choose to draw the line in a different place. I bet you still draw the line.

JonFish85 13y ago

"Governments should not make it their job to protect individuals from every bad choice they could make." Essentially, one role of government is to step in when there are harmful things being done to people. This author seems to argue that this is exactly why some things are regulated, and argues that their "competitors" (probably not the right term) should fall under the same rules: hotels, taxis, etc. Personally I agree that the government's job isn't to protect people from their own stupid choices, but it's a big grey area of where to draw that line.

obvious01 13y ago

No they can't. Sure, they can make a decision, but it won't be a informed one. Most people are unaware that Uber drivers are questionably insured. They don't read HackerNews or ArsTechnica, or even WSJ, NYT. Moreover, Uber doesn't advertise that fact on their website or in their smartphone apps. So it is impossible for an uninformed customer to make such a decision in the first place.

michaelt 13y ago

Individuals can freely choose a taxi cab over Uber if insurance is a concern for them. People hit by Uber drivers with invalid insurance don't get a free choice in the matter. And if higher numbers of uninsured drivers drive up premiums for regular motorists, they don't a free choice either. This is what economists call an externality [1]. A voluntary transaction that looks good to the two parties who have a choice in the matter, but which imposes a cost on a third party who doesn't have a choice. If I own an apartment and the apartment next door gets sold to an investor who rents it out on AirBnB for nightly loud parties, eroding my property's value, that's the same thing. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

Houshalter 13y ago
Liability insurance is required for all drivers, not just taxis. If the driver didn't have insurance, he was violating the law regardless. The fact he was operating a taxi service has nothing to do with anything. License plate readers could trivially identify cars on the road without insurance if it's a huge problem.
- JonFish85 13y ago
  But as a company who employs these drivers, shouldn't at least part of the onus be on them to ensure that their drivers meet these requirements? In the same way that Uber/taxi companies have to ensure that their drivers have a license, shouldn't they also have to make sure he had adequate insurance?
  - stickfigure 13y ago
    Drivers are not employees of Uber. Before you say "that's just a technicality" consider also that freelancers are not employees of 99designs.com, freelancer.com, or crowdspring.com - even though that's how they negotiate and get paid for work. The idea of a clearinghouse for matching freelance drivers and customers is something new.
  - sneak 13y ago
    > But as a company who employs these drivers, shouldn't at least part of the onus be on them to ensure that their drivers meet these requirements? No, it is the job of law enforcement to enforce laws. Uber should fire drivers that are known to be breaking the law, sure, but requiring that they screen up-front for lawbreakers is the same as requiring drug testing or other such nonsense.
- sharemywin 13y ago
  the insurance company won't cover it because it's personal insurance not commercial insurance. Personal insurance isn't priced on people driving around in their cars all day.

bowlofpetunias 13y ago

Governments in democracies work in service of the people, and when the people want the government to protect them collectively instead of having to fend for themselves individually, that is what the government does. If the people want some protection from being exploited by ruthless companies, that's what they get. An gee, what surprise, most people don't want to spend their days looking over their shoulders and constantly having to be concerned with every little detail for fear of getting screwed. They just want to get from A to B in the certainty that in a civilized, well-organised society these things are properly arranged. Why is this concept which is so simple so terribly hard to grasp?

codyb 13y ago

I think it is because it is an attempt to break down a terribly complex system into a set of simple rules which simply do not factor in all of the externalities of day to day life in societies featuring tens of millions of independent actors.

rayiner 13y ago

Insurance mandates exist to protect the people hit by cars, not the drivers of the cars. As a general principle, businesses should bear the cost of the externalized risk they create. If you run a taxi business, which is what Uber does regardless of how you try to lawyer your way around the definition of "taxi," then you should bear the cost of insuring against the inevitable collisions and accidents that arise from your business.