1. In this case, there's no opting out of personal protection without endangering innocents - as long as you're using public transportation infrastructure (i.e. roads), an unmaintained and/or uninsured car is a danger to others. There is public interest in ensuring such cars do not drive alongside regular traffic.
2. Such "protection" through enforcement of some minimal standards is a cost; if you remove that floor, the market will push straight down. What you intend as a voluntary opt-out mode will become involuntary, as prices adjusts to reflect the added costs of those standards. In other words, it's not just those who're willingly opting out that will be using "unprotected" services, but also those who can't afford the "protection" but need the service.
Point 2 can be also restated as: safety standards are a cost, the market will happily get rid of it (by externalizing them onto society at large) if you allow it to.
In most jurisdictions, it is illegal to drive a car without a specific level of insurance or with safety-related maintenance issues independent of whether it is being used for some commercial purpose.
For example, look at arbitration in the US.
Want a retirement account? Arbitration clause.
Bank account? Arbitration clause.
Cell phone contract? Arbitration clause.
Insurance? Arbitration clause.
Online video game account? Arbitration clause.
And most people don't realize how one sided these are until they end up on the wrong end of the legal system.
Because people are too lazy to walk away from a bad deal or simply don't want to read the contract they're about to sign is a really poor justification.
Services that are technically "rent a car with a driver" can operate like taxis, but not do on-street pickup.
Only regulations: Needs driver license, needs insurance.
By your logic we shouldn't regulate smoking or guns or a million other things we regulate, for good reason.
It's not just about stupid people. It's also about people who get deceived by marketing (i.e. all of us, in some way, at some point). It's also about the market adjusting prices so that the unsafe option will be the only option available for some people, while true costs are externalized onto society.
But the point still is, as you say, we regulate a lot of things for good reason.
Yes, but it'll work the other way around - the "safe option" will become cheaper, otherwise services that provide it will go out of business. What makes you think that "unsafe option will be the only option available for some people". Feels a bit like you're demonising the free market.
stupid people will hurt them self, one way or another. You can't protect people from their own stupidity by introducing more and more regulations. Soon, you won't be able to purchase a kitchen knife.
Now we have:
- speed limits
- car making regulations
- fuel regulations
- ...
And 99% of those rules are good for society as a whole.
Regulation isn't bad in and of itself, abuse of regulation is. Focus on the real target ;)
It's just a very small group of people telling everyone else what's good for them. I have a better idea - create regulations that "protect the innocent" but at the same time allow people to opt-out from such "protection" and use whatever transportation service they fucking please (but at their own risk).