4 ms·

My own concerns about Uber/Lyft have to do with properly following regulation that are legitimately in the public interest. From what I understand, in addition

My own concerns about Uber/Lyft have to do with properly following regulation that are legitimately in the public interest. From what I understand, in additional to the 800 lb gorilla (medallion licensing), there are other areas where Uber and Lyft skirt regulation. For example, I have read Uber argue that they are insured, but is it to the same level that taxi company drivers are required to be? How about other licensing? If we believe that the taxi regulations are unnecessarily burdensome, then lets redraw the rules for all parties. We need a common set of rules that everybody follows. Only then can we have proper competition among Uber, Lyft, Yellow Cab, etc.

jasonisalive 12y ago
Here's an outlandish idea: let people choose whether to take rides from insured drivers or not. Hell, why not let drivers openly advertise their insurance levels to attract customers! Letting people choose their risk level for themselves - it's so crazy it might just work.
- DanBC 12y ago
  We know that people are hopeless at assessing risk. And an un-insured driver and their passenger are not taking risks for only themselves -- other people using the roads need coverage. If you cause an accident their insurance company will come after you. A seemingly minor injury - sprained wrist with bruised fingers - becomes overwhelmingly expensive if it's an eye-surgeon who is injured and who is suing for loss of earnings for two weeks. Why should that person lose money because you chose to go uninsured?
  - jasonisalive 12y ago
    1) As a customer, I don't care at all what insurance my driver has to protect him or herself in the event they cause an accident. Should I? 2) The requirement that road users have insurance is in my opinion completely separate to what those road-users do with their vehicles. Shouldn't it be? 3) People are not "hopeless at assessing risk." That's a ludicrous assertion. Everytime anybody buys anything, goes anywhere, or does anything, they are assessing risk. Buying goods off Ebay = assessing risks. Eating at a restaurant = assessing risks. Walking down the street = assessing risks.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      3) People are not "hopeless at assessing risk." That's a ludicrous assertion. No, you are wrong. People over-estimate the probability of rare events and under estimate the probability of common events. There are a bunch of biases that make people really bad at assessing risk. The examples you give - all of them needed extensive modification to help people assess the risk or to protect people from the risk. (Ebay introduced reputation systems and gives stern advice about not paying for goods with Western Union cash transfer; retaurants have to comply with hygiene laws backed up by inspection - how many people bother to ask to see the kitchen or the staff loos before eating somewhere?)
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

jasonisalive 12y ago

Here's an outlandish idea: let people choose whether to take rides from insured drivers or not. Hell, why not let drivers openly advertise their insurance levels to attract customers! Letting people choose their risk level for themselves - it's so crazy it might just work.

DanBC 12y ago
We know that people are hopeless at assessing risk. And an un-insured driver and their passenger are not taking risks for only themselves -- other people using the roads need coverage. If you cause an accident their insurance company will come after you. A seemingly minor injury - sprained wrist with bruised fingers - becomes overwhelmingly expensive if it's an eye-surgeon who is injured and who is suing for loss of earnings for two weeks. Why should that person lose money because you chose to go uninsured?
- jasonisalive 12y ago
  1) As a customer, I don't care at all what insurance my driver has to protect him or herself in the event they cause an accident. Should I? 2) The requirement that road users have insurance is in my opinion completely separate to what those road-users do with their vehicles. Shouldn't it be? 3) People are not "hopeless at assessing risk." That's a ludicrous assertion. Everytime anybody buys anything, goes anywhere, or does anything, they are assessing risk. Buying goods off Ebay = assessing risks. Eating at a restaurant = assessing risks. Walking down the street = assessing risks.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    3) People are not "hopeless at assessing risk." That's a ludicrous assertion. No, you are wrong. People over-estimate the probability of rare events and under estimate the probability of common events. There are a bunch of biases that make people really bad at assessing risk. The examples you give - all of them needed extensive modification to help people assess the risk or to protect people from the risk. (Ebay introduced reputation systems and gives stern advice about not paying for goods with Western Union cash transfer; retaurants have to comply with hygiene laws backed up by inspection - how many people bother to ask to see the kitchen or the staff loos before eating somewhere?)

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]