Hacker News Reader

Comment by Zak | Hacker News Reader

If you don't take Uber's word for it, don't use Uber. Given that there are alternatives available, I don't see the need for regulation here.

View on HN

Except that's not how public safety works. Part of why this regulation exists is because having unregulated taxi drivers (at least to the judgement of lawmakers) poses a danger to everyone else on roads etc.

It surprises me that intelligent people are so ready to take bureaucrats and politicians at their word when they claim that "your safety is our priority".

Is it any less surprising than someone taking the word of a corporate entity when they use the exact same phrase?

Yes! God forbid someone isn't as cynical about the government! I mean obviously regulators that are regulating the cabs are interested in making the government a profit to ensure that the gov is the most profitable organiza....wait a second. Oh yah, the governments role is to provide for the common welfare of this nation. Silly me.

That's its role in theory, but in practice, governments are made out of people, and people don't always have the motives they're supposed to. A government official might be more motivated by a desire to protect the profits of his friend's taxi company than by what's in the interests of society as a whole.

It doesn't always work out this way, but I think in the case of companies like Uber, the interests of the company, the customer and society as a whole all align. To be able to make a profit, Uber needs to be perceived as safe. The most effective way to do that is to actually be safe.

You can just go to Peru, Bolivia or anywhere near them and check if you are insured whenever you get into a 'taxi'...

Neat! How do I get in on that? It would be super convenient if my business could opt out of regulations I find inconvenient.

You do something that isn't quite covered under a strict reading of the regulations that are in place, then you hire a good lawyer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com