Posted on 06/23/2016 5:18:33 AM PDT by Kaslin
In the view of those who believe that bureaucrats know best, the only way to protect consumers from unscrupulous companies is to provide detailed regulations and a swarm of investigators to enforce them. They typically justify their role by claiming to champion the safety of helpless consumers.
However, what happens when less regulation leads to improved safety? Will the regulators back off to protect consumers or keep fighting to protect their turf?
A real world test of that question has been provided by the innovative ride-sharing service Uber. Rather than hoping to hail a taxi, consumers can simply hail a driver using their smart phone app. The service has delivered over a billion rides in just six years.
But that success infuriated regulators and politicians like New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. They claim that Uber is more dangerous than taxis because it is not heavily regulated by political appointees.
A new study, released by Angela K. Dills of Providence College and Sean Mulholland of Stonehill College, shows that reality is the opposite of what the regulators and politicians portray. When Uber first enters a market, there is a "6 percent decline in the fatal accident rate" and more than a 50 percent decline in DUIs.
Not only that, the safety improvement continues to grow the longer that Uber is in a market. "For each additional year of operation, Uber's continued presence is associated with a 16.6 percent decline in vehicular fatalities." That seems logical as more and more people get in the habit of using the ride-sharing service.
For those who place their faith in the Regulatory State, these results don't make any sense. How can an unregulated service be safer than a heavily regulated service? The answer is that Uber is heavily regulated by consumers. They are a much tougher audience to satisfy than bureaucrats. If the company does not provide a safe and convenient service, people will not use it.
A couple of generations ago, consumers had very little information before they got into a taxi. How could you know which car was reliable? How could you be sure the driver wasn't taking a longer route to drive up the fare? In that environment, it made some sense to have established rates and safety guidelines.
But times have changed because technology has empowered individual travelers. They can negotiate the price in advance and follow the driver's route on their GPS. They can also share their experiences -- good and bad -- with others.
Add it all together and those who advocate public safety should be welcoming Uber and similar services with open arms. But politicians and regulators are doing just the opposite. Austin, Texas, for example recently banned Uber and Lyft. Not only that, they have launched sting operations to impound the cars of local entrepreneurs trying to fill the void and meet the consumer demand.
In other words, the politicians and regulators have declared war on services that reduce traffic fatalities and DUIs while improving customer services. Sadly, this shows that politicians and regulators are more interested in protecting their turf rather than protecting consumers.
Uber is free market anarchy...Democrats (statists) live to control the minutia of everything. They can’t have it.
Wait until a host of services go this route. Everything from hair cuts to dog grooming to lawn mowing to carpentry/handyman services. All off the books.
Austin, the Big Blue Anus of Texas, ran Uber and Lyft out of town. The incidents of drunk driving are up. Austin doesn’t care about public safety.
But that success infuriated regulators and politicians like New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. They claim that Uber is more dangerous than taxis because it is not heavily regulated by political appointees.
...
I think it has more to do with taxi companies making a lot of political contributions, and in some cases bribes.
Anyone NOT know the answer to this one?
Upwards of 40% of the work force need a license or a credential of some sort just to legally work in their field. With and Uber like service, assuming your willing to take the risk, you can hire anyone to provide these services at a reduced cost.
And, don’t discount the fact that these services with be side stepping insurance, workers comp requirements, commercial service rates (phone/power) of brick and mortar competitors. A lot of corporations make their living off what’s mandated by the government. Side step all that.
Democrats can’t allow free market anarchy, but risk alienating a young generation. It’s a double bind.
‘Regulators’ - those who took kickbacks for decades.
One of the gormless taxi concession owners took to a newspaper web site to moan about the sudden need to compete. He actually complained that his ‘investment’ (read: legal bribery) might lose value.
It’s interesting to note: after all those same decades of taxi monopolies they SUDDENLY discovered their cabs were dirty, their drivers rude and unintelligible and they needed an app for locating and hailing cabs.
Which, of course, explains the HMOs' embrace of Obamacare. Unfortunately, they failed to evaluate or even acknowledge the plan's name sake vis-a-vis its chances for success.
It's not turf - it's money, and the power that comes with it.
Pay once. Add a million dollar liability umbrella to your homeowners policy, not that expensive, I have it.
Hire contractors off and Uber like service.
Call him our her your uncle/aunt or second cousin who volunteering.
OSHA shows up => no jurisdiction over non commercial activities!
“You don’t like the scaffolding, well he’s my cousin, go pound salt!”
I use Uber a lot.
Will never ride in a Taxi again.
This 2 minute clip from the Sopranos explains exactly why they hate Uber.
Two hoods trying to shake down the new coffee shop in town for protection money. The shop manager explains that the store is owned by a corporation with 10,000 stores, and that every last coffee bean is in the computer. He could’t pay them protection money even if he wanted to.
Uber is like that. No opportunity for graft for local public officials.
I was hoping the article would tell me something I didn't already know.
Protecting turf is what Congressman X is all about.
I’ve used it once. Really liked it.
Have thought of becoming a driver for a few extra bucks. My wife is freaked out at the prospect.
Telling her no money changes hands so the robbery aspect is greatly reduced has not settled her.
“I think it has more to do with taxi companies making a lot of political contributions, and in some cases bribes.”
In the weeks before the Austin “vote”, Uber & Lyft drivers were experiencing a manifold increase in cancellations, iow, the taxi lobby organized their “friends” to disrupt the system.
#that’showthugswork
More income from fines to feed the beast; what's not to like if you're a lib?
And, don’t discount the fact that these services with be side stepping insurance, workers comp requirements, commercial service rates (phone/power) of brick and mortar competitors. A lot of corporations make their living off what’s mandated by the government. Side step all that.
Democrats can’t allow free market anarchy, but risk alienating a young generation. It’s a double bind.
Indeed! You could not be more correct if you tried.
Jesus Christ: You can't impeach Him and He ain't gonna resign.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.