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

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.