First, somebody doing something commercially is, on the average, going to do more of it than somebody doing it for personal reasons, so there's increased risk exposure.
While this is true, it seems a better and more direct approach would be for insurance companies to consider time spent driving (and if that's hard to gauge, then mileage would probably be a good substitute). Surely the insurance companies would want to charge someone who is on the road 12 hours a day more than someone who does a couple uber jobs a week.
Second, somebody doing something commercially is more likely to have commitments, and more likely to do that something in more hazardous conditions. I'm a lot less likely to drive somewhere if I'm tired or if the weather is really bad than a commercial driver would be.
I don't think I really buy this claim. I could see it going both ways. If you are employed to drive, you might be more likely to observe legally mandatory breaks and limits on number of consecutive driving hours, etc. If you are just driving for yourself you don't have any of those restrictions. I think it depends on the type of person.
Third, the distinction makes it easier for people in their everyday lives. Lots of people here have complained about how easy it is to get a driver's license in the US, but in reality living in most places in the US without being able to drive is a handicap. This means that non-commercial drivers get a break, while commercial drivers can be expected to put in the extra effort to get their business going (like a special license).
I really don't see the point of making people's lives easier if it means that we will have unsafe drivers on the road. If someone crashes into me because they can't drive, I don't feel any better if it is a person who has worse insurance and is just living an everyday life.
The big insurance problem is when a driver doesn't get commercial insurance (meaning the "commercial" box is unchecked) and does drive commercially. That means the driver is driving in a way specifically not covered by the policy, and that is potentially a very big problem.
I buy hazard insurance for my house. If I falsely report that I have a fire extinguisher to get a lower rate (but actually don't), and my house burns down, is the insurance company still on the hook to cover my loss? I honestly don't know, but I think they still are because I think it is the insurance companies job to verify the information I give them and determine if they want to charge me a higher rate. I suspect that it is this way, because if it weren;t insurance companies would find all sorts of ways to get out of paying out for claims.
Regardless of whether hazard insurance actually works this way in various places, I think this model might work well for auto insurance as well.
The insurance companies that really care if you are specifically driving for commercial purposes can request documentation that shows your job description does not include driving, as well as something showing you are a full time employee, etc. The insurance companies that don;t really care, can just check the odometer on your car and charge you based on how much you drive regardless of what it's for.
I wouldn't have a problem with a law requiring uber (and others) to release license plates of current uber cars to insurance companies.
I don't doubt that it's a problem that some drivers are not covered. But I think the way to fix it is to make better laws, rather than simply punishing uber. We need robust laws that capture the accurately spirit of what we are trying to achieve. That way, they won't need to be rewritten every time someone comes up with a new technology, product or business model.