3 ms·

All of this nonsense about insurance and checks and blah makes me weep for humanity. If I can hitch hike legally, why can't I pay for the same service? Basical

All of this nonsense about insurance and checks and blah makes me weep for humanity. If I can hitch hike legally, why can't I pay for the same service? Basically it seems to me that regulation has the effect of forcing lifestyles upon people. You can't just sell people things, you have to be a Thing Seller and devote yourself to that regulatory environment and then you can sell some of the people some of the things. Bonkers.

raldi 11y ago
When you hitchhike, the driver's insurance is in effect. And when you get out of the car, it's still in effect. With Uber, as soon as you get out of the car, it's possible that the driver suddenly has no insurance in effect, until the next passenger gets in.
chinathrow 11y ago
Well, in some locations you can't hitch legally. So there's that.
Spooky23 11y ago
The difference is when you hitchhike, there is insurance coverage in effect. So when the driver slams into a tree and you get hurt, your care (which isn't covered by health insurance) is paid for by the auto insurer. When you aren't covered by insurance, society absorbs the costs of the $10,000+ ER visit, $500 ambulance trip, etc. Your family bears the burden of chronic medical issues and work loss, etc. The answer is simple. You pay a little more for commercial/livery coverage and your passengers are covered against perils. The background check thing is even easier. Do you want your wife picked up and driven around by a convicted rapist? For the want of Uber spending the massive sum of like $20?
probably_wrong 11y ago
Precisely, because you don't pay the guy that gives you a lift when you hitchhike, but you do pay to an Uber driver. Once there's money involved, we are no longer talking about an agreement between gentlemen, but about a commercial transaction, and those require regulations because the incentives are different, and money does weird things to people. A driver maximizing profits has no incentive in, say, checking his brakes regularly (money spent + car immobilized for some time), while a random driver does ("yeah, I'll take a cab for a couple days, no biggie").
- SilasX 11y ago
  Your general point is sound, about the profit motive leading to riskier behavior, but the application to that specific case is questionable. Drivers have the right incentives on brake checks, regardless of profit, by virtue if the fact that they're in the car and would lose control! It would be more correct to say that the incentive problem here lies in uncompensated danger to other drivers, which for-profit drivers may be willing to ignore when tempted by money.
biftek 11y ago
Apples and oranges? When you hitch hike (or pick someone up) you and the other party are taking a mutual risk together. But if money is exchanging hands I, and I'm going to bet most people, would want the risk factor removed.
hn_user2 11y ago
I think the biggest difference between your one off paying to hitchike with a single car and Uber drivers is that Uber drivers have in essence become common carriers. Additional safeguards to common carriers make common sense to me, since you are now holding yourself out to the public, and not taking one-off or by arrangement only rides. Kind of like the difference in regulations for airplane charter vs an airline. The hitchhiker example and just paying one-off car rides is different than someone that advertises and holds themselves out to the public.
anu7df 11y ago
I think I would be weeping for humanity if these checks and balances vanished. Yes it is onerous, but sometimes they serve a purpose. If it stops one unfortunate event it is worth it in my books. Also, I am tired of this disrupt everything meme.
stegosaurus 11y ago
People replying seem to be missing the point a bit; taking a kind of low view of my knowledge. I realise fully that insurance and laws and various other things make this situation different. What I'm saying is that this is an odd and nonsensical situation. If I hitch at the side of the road I can get into a completely random car with a random driver with no trace, digital or paper, and this is not illegal (UK) and shouldn't be IMO. But if I do the same and pay for the privilege suddenly apparently we have to start worrying about the risk of rape and badly maintained cars and so forth. One poster asked whether I'd want my wife to get in a car with a convicted rapist. My wife is an autonomous human being... she can hitch, or hitch and offer to pay, or hold signs up offering a few pounds for a lift, or use Uber, or a licenced taxi company. "Safety" is a variable she can consider whilst doing so. I don't want my basic interactions with others governed by 'background checks' carried out by the state. If you do, fine. Why do you need to force me? (I should say that I don't really respect Uber as a business because I feel OSS should be able to do this peer to peer, but that's rather beside the point). It frustrates me because the safety argument is basically a variant on 'think of the children'. It's difficult to argue against without considering what you lose in the process. Background checks and licensing and road worthy tests and other regulation tilt the playing field away from me and you and towards wealthy business owners. What is so wrong with me deciding to jump in my car now and drive people home for a fee? Not a rapist, not a pedophile, just plain jane boring old me? I would like to hear the argument against that, the one that doesn't involve appealing to scare stories of the 1 in 10000 bad cookie.

raldi 11y ago

When you hitchhike, the driver's insurance is in effect. And when you get out of the car, it's still in effect. With Uber, as soon as you get out of the car, it's possible that the driver suddenly has no insurance in effect, until the next passenger gets in.

chinathrow 11y ago

Well, in some locations you can't hitch legally. So there's that.

Spooky23 11y ago

The difference is when you hitchhike, there is insurance coverage in effect. So when the driver slams into a tree and you get hurt, your care (which isn't covered by health insurance) is paid for by the auto insurer. When you aren't covered by insurance, society absorbs the costs of the $10,000+ ER visit, $500 ambulance trip, etc. Your family bears the burden of chronic medical issues and work loss, etc. The answer is simple. You pay a little more for commercial/livery coverage and your passengers are covered against perils. The background check thing is even easier. Do you want your wife picked up and driven around by a convicted rapist? For the want of Uber spending the massive sum of like $20?

probably_wrong 11y ago

Precisely, because you don't pay the guy that gives you a lift when you hitchhike, but you do pay to an Uber driver. Once there's money involved, we are no longer talking about an agreement between gentlemen, but about a commercial transaction, and those require regulations because the incentives are different, and money does weird things to people. A driver maximizing profits has no incentive in, say, checking his brakes regularly (money spent + car immobilized for some time), while a random driver does ("yeah, I'll take a cab for a couple days, no biggie").

SilasX 11y ago
Your general point is sound, about the profit motive leading to riskier behavior, but the application to that specific case is questionable. Drivers have the right incentives on brake checks, regardless of profit, by virtue if the fact that they're in the car and would lose control! It would be more correct to say that the incentive problem here lies in uncompensated danger to other drivers, which for-profit drivers may be willing to ignore when tempted by money.

biftek 11y ago

Apples and oranges? When you hitch hike (or pick someone up) you and the other party are taking a mutual risk together. But if money is exchanging hands I, and I'm going to bet most people, would want the risk factor removed.

hn_user2 11y ago

I think the biggest difference between your one off paying to hitchike with a single car and Uber drivers is that Uber drivers have in essence become common carriers. Additional safeguards to common carriers make common sense to me, since you are now holding yourself out to the public, and not taking one-off or by arrangement only rides. Kind of like the difference in regulations for airplane charter vs an airline. The hitchhiker example and just paying one-off car rides is different than someone that advertises and holds themselves out to the public.

anu7df 11y ago

I think I would be weeping for humanity if these checks and balances vanished. Yes it is onerous, but sometimes they serve a purpose. If it stops one unfortunate event it is worth it in my books. Also, I am tired of this disrupt everything meme.

stegosaurus 11y ago

People replying seem to be missing the point a bit; taking a kind of low view of my knowledge. I realise fully that insurance and laws and various other things make this situation different. What I'm saying is that this is an odd and nonsensical situation. If I hitch at the side of the road I can get into a completely random car with a random driver with no trace, digital or paper, and this is not illegal (UK) and shouldn't be IMO. But if I do the same and pay for the privilege suddenly apparently we have to start worrying about the risk of rape and badly maintained cars and so forth. One poster asked whether I'd want my wife to get in a car with a convicted rapist. My wife is an autonomous human being... she can hitch, or hitch and offer to pay, or hold signs up offering a few pounds for a lift, or use Uber, or a licenced taxi company. "Safety" is a variable she can consider whilst doing so. I don't want my basic interactions with others governed by 'background checks' carried out by the state. If you do, fine. Why do you need to force me? (I should say that I don't really respect Uber as a business because I feel OSS should be able to do this peer to peer, but that's rather beside the point). It frustrates me because the safety argument is basically a variant on 'think of the children'. It's difficult to argue against without considering what you lose in the process. Background checks and licensing and road worthy tests and other regulation tilt the playing field away from me and you and towards wealthy business owners. What is so wrong with me deciding to jump in my car now and drive people home for a fee? Not a rapist, not a pedophile, just plain jane boring old me? I would like to hear the argument against that, the one that doesn't involve appealing to scare stories of the 1 in 10000 bad cookie.