I realize you are joking, but the concern really is that cab companies are something that consumers are trusting their lives with, and often in situations before they can evaluate trustworthiness or history, if not of entire companies then certainly of individual drivers. There are extensive regulations that have thereby been placed on such companies over the years related to vehicle maintenance, specialized insurance, and traffic organization. Uber believes that none of this should apply to them because they are being "disruptive" (as if that is somehow itself a benefit for which we should be optimizing as a society).

We don't miss regulation until it's gone. The apartheid government, in its dying days, decided to promote free-marketism and it deregulated the minibus taxi sector, thinking that each driver would run a one-man business. What really happened is that those with access to capital bought fleets of minibuses and South Africas cities became a nightmare by the mid-1990's with taxi-owners forming cartels which engaged in bloody wars for lucrative routes. The taxis are unsafe, and their drivers are reckless (passengers dare not complain). Government attempts at re-regulation are constantly stymied.

The taxi industry operates with impunity, and managed to get ownership of new Bus Rapid Transit systems in Johannesburg and Pretoria (they'd have shot bus drivers if they didn't get a stake).

I've been threatened personally with a weapon (a hammer, not a gun, fortunately) by a taxi driver who felt I didn't move out of his way fast enough. Not coincidentally, it was around that time that my libertarian leanings began to wane.

"engaged in bloody wars for lucrative routes" "threatened personally with a weapon"

Isn't the obvious solution to this problem the enforcement of existing laws against threats and violence?

Or conversely, if the government is so weak that it can't stop the taxi cartels from fighting bloody battles, surely it's also too weak to enforce cab licensing laws.

Yes, the fundamental problem is a weak state.

However, deregulating the industry made the problem far worse than it could have been. Our law enforcement is not entirely ineffectual, and a permit system would have provided more control than a free-for-all, by moderating supply. Buses remained more tighly controlled and I don't see bus warfare (there is an upward trend in accidents involving buses though I think that has more to do with poorly skilled drivers than profit-seeking).

I believe Uber simply sub-contracts to independent sedan drivers who have already jumped through all the necessary governmental hoops - it's not a dispatching system for gypsy cabs. The drivers I spoke to in my city (SF) said that they simply use Uber as an additional source of income.

This is certainly the case with their new "Uber X" service as well that got into trouble in DC - the only difference is that they dispatch hybrids from their partners vs. towncars / SUVs.

Private cars / limousines / independent sedans are not regulated the same way as taxi cabs under the specific assumption that they are scheduled in advance (which changes both the information and market dynamics, often involves specific drivers, and provides more opportunities for strong contracts to be in play); this is actually required by law in some jurisdictions, including DC.

> “It happens to be D.C. law," Linton reiterated about the situation with Uber. "D.C. law prescribes that limousines must enter into an advance contract with the passenger.”

http://www.tbd.com/blogs/tbd-on-foot/2012/01/the-kojo-show-b...

Why should whether the ride is scheduled in advance matter with respect to things like maintenance? And to the extent that they matter, isn't Uber in fact more like a limousine service than a taxi?

And thank God for that. Can you imagine if cabbies drove irresponsibly?