If your friends want a startup that will help them get downtown to pound beers faster, and Uber dies, don't worry - someone else who can _actually do the job_ and abide by the rules will almost certainly be there. And the Uber employees who get canned? They might actually
The amount of doublethink people have here about "bad actors will get pushed out of the market for better ones" while simultaneously defending shitty business practices, or conveniently ignoring that bad actor principle when their oh-so-favorite business gets a slap, is pretty astonishing. But given most people on HN seem to only want to "disrupt" the wallets of other so theirs can get fatter through acquihire buy-out plans for their ephemeral startups, I guess it's not surprising.
What's amazing is that people are voting with their dollars that they approve of the business and you want to stick your nose in there and say "hey guys, I don't approve of this transaction. Get out of the car."
The customer wanting something in no way, shape, or form justifies violating the law. And in this case, the customer is NOT told to absorb costs for services they don't want. They're simply told to pay the true cost of the service. If they don't want to, then they clearly did not value the service that much.
Driver A: "I'll get you there for $10. If I crash, you don't get to sue Uber, just me."
Driver B: "I'll get you there for $15. If I crash, you can go after Uber."
As the customer, do you believe I should have the right to choose between these two options? Or do you believe I should be forced to choose B every time?
In CA, you have to have insurance to drive a car. It would be cheaper for you not to have insurance, but most people don't have the money to make things right when they get into an accident. This is exactly analogous.
Outside of that, I find this attitude incredibly patronizing. "We need to save you from yourself" is what it boils down to. You pay somebody for a ride knowing she's not insured? That's _your_ problem, not mine.