Hacker News Reader

The benefit is getting a car, or a place to stay, far more easily.

My point isn't that these services are net good (though I do think so). It's that any "net bad" argument that doesn't consider these benefits isn't serious and so discredits its own side.

I also agree that these services are a net good, but I think what the original article was trying to say was "why don't they just suck it up and insure their operators?" Then the "net bad" argument disappears.

If you're right, then I misread the article, which is quite possible.

Uber got popular in SF even when they only had towncars (which cost more than taxis) simply because their drivers would actually show up. They shouldn't be skimping on insurance, and that's not the only reason they exist.

Every driver on the road is a potential uninsured operator. Uber didn't create uninsured drivers. And they require their drivers to be insured. Should we ban all vehicles because they might at some point be uninsured?

And if you don't like that, no one is forcing you to use it.