Lyft, Uber, and Airbnb can't avoid regulation forever. They've just been lucky so far. Eventually there will be a high profile incident—someone important will get raped or murdered. The political response will be 1000x what their lobbyists can handle.
It is inevitable. The reality is that this is how a lot of regulation starts. It doesn't always come from an anticompetitive place. We just forget that we actually asked for the regulation. Once we have, it's nice to always be able to blame the government or some regulator when something goes wrong. And then someone else can come in and "disrupt" the market by using a loophole of pretending like the regulation doesn't apply to them, when it's clearly intended to.
I guess, the GP intends to say some "celebrity" figure gets raped/murdered when he/she mentioned "high profile incident". The incidents of the women who have been raped or assaulted by Uber drivers, were not "high profile incidents", that will demand large front page news or equivalent news on TV on prime time for days or weeks altogether on Times like influential, popular news media.
Serious question: what is Uber/Lyft specific about a customer being assaulted? Is that inherently different than rapes or assaults by taxi drivers? Cause I'm sure there's been plenty of cases. Don't get me wrong, those are horrific, but I guess I'm failing to see what in Uber or Lyft makes it easier to happen or why it might require special regulation.
Maybe the fact that cab drivers need a licence and are thus screened more thoroughly?
I think the reason Uber/Lyft are especially vulnerable to this is because they present an easy target for politicians who are being held responsible for a crime in the area. Its much easier for politicians to respond to such a crime with "we're banning taxi apps" rather than identifying and tackling root causes.
Case in point - when an Uber driver raped a woman in Delhi, this is exactly what the Delhi government did.
Excellent point. I think it is worth noting regulations can be classified into acute and chronic. Acute taxi regulation would have been disallowing criminal records after a series of rapes or robberies.
Chronic problems would be over charging - put it this way, the day before taxis were forced to charge a certain amount each mile, all taxis would have been free to charge different amounts as uber and lyft can.
We do ask for regulation - and always in response to symptoms. Regulation is not pre planned rational thought ...
Another issue that seems to be a major hangup in my jurisdiction (which has banned Uber from operating) is the lack of "proper insurance" for Uber drivers/cars.
Lyft's entire business model skirted regulation. At least when Uber started they required all drivers to have passenger carrier permits and commercial insurance. Then Lyft comes around and completely ignores the law. Completely. Uber starts losing business, and so then Uber responds in kind with UberX.
Now it's legal because it flies under the banner of "rider sharing". But we all know that there is really no sharing to be had. It's just a for hire service. The regulation will return, eventually.
It is inevitable. The reality is that this is how a lot of regulation starts. It doesn't always come from an anticompetitive place. We just forget that we actually asked for the regulation. Once we have, it's nice to always be able to blame the government or some regulator when something goes wrong. And then someone else can come in and "disrupt" the market by using a loophole of pretending like the regulation doesn't apply to them, when it's clearly intended to.