Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
The question comes down to where to draw the line. How should the laws be written/interpreted when taking into account modern society? I'd be one of these "bootlickers" because my opinion doesn't match up to yours (in principal, not in this particular case. Fuck stingrays and all the BS involved). You and others like you have the right to defend your freedoms as you see they should be implemented, just as much as those "bootlickers" have the right to defend their side.
The simplest way to explain why you were wrong is that the insurance companies themselves charge more for commercial use. It sounds like a tautology, but it isn't. They base their rates on statistics. If the statistics say there is a higher risk of either more or larger payouts under commercial use, then there must actually be a higher risk. From what I can find, there is higher liability when a commercial entity is involved in an accident.
As for Uber providing coverage, I did read that at least one did offer coverage for anything the insurance company doesn't cover. My statement was more generalized to cover the industry as a whole. As far as ease of implementation goes, I think it's best for the company to cover the driver/passenger when on duty. The company has direct access to when the drivers are active and be able to provide coverage for those times. There would be no confusion, no extra work to determine whether the accident was covered or not.