"We have a big public safety issue here, and we need to get them to understand that this a problem ... and that we do not intend to ignore it."
What an absolute cop-out this is, no pun intended.
What an absolute cop-out this is, no pun intended.
I don't doubt that there is an element of protectionism here as well. But that doesn't mean that there isn't also a public safety issue, or, regardless, that Uber is free to flout local law so long as it can pay the fines.
How so?
I can think of two example of near unanimous modern agreement where lower governmental levels are not allowed to impose additional randomly purchased rules on subjects regulated at a higher level, its a thought crime to even suggest the rationale behind these historical issues:
1) Poll taxes and election tests
2) Enforcement of immigration law