Some modern companies seem to complain excessively about regulations that people have been living with for years without complaint. We've seen Uber complain that their taxi service is sometimes regulated like a taxi service, requiring commercial driver's licenses, commercial insurance, and background checks (nobody's applying medallion limits to Uber).
Most of that seems to be Uber and the city working out something reasonable. For example, from what I've heard Uber now carries commercial insurance for the drivers, does background checks about as good as what taxi drivers get*. Uber has a facility in NYC to help it's drivers get the licenses and permits required. I read the page on it, it seems that NY has 'numerous' levels of commercial driver's license, depending on if you're going to be a taxi, limo, truck, or bus driver.
You seem to be saying that regulation shouldn't be applied when it's actually needed, but rather has to wait until numerous people have suffered for the lack of it.
Okay, so let me ask, how do you determine that it's 'actually needed' if people haven't suffered from the lack of it? That being said, I'm willing to accept a convincingly logical argument that harm would take place without the proposed regulation, but note 'convincing'. Vague statements that it needs to be regulated to prevent vague types of harm isn't convincing. For example, I'm willing to accept evidence from related situations from the past, in different locations.
It's usually not possible to directly compare results with regulation and results without regulation over time.
Sure it is. That being said, you should go back and re-assess regulations on a regular basis for adjustment. We should not be enacting regulations where the expected effect is intended to be so subtle as to be hard to track.
the idea is to reduce crime perpetrated by the drivers, but there really isn't much measurable other than how many people failed the check. In order to see if it reduces crime, it would be necessary to take some of the people failing the check and put them into cabs over a period of time and see how many passengers were crime victims.
Or, for example, you don't require background checks at first, then notice that the crime rate against passengers is too high. You notice that most of the offenders have a history of it, and that's why you put the background checks in. If you note that most of the offenders don't have a history, you look for other options.
For example, consider background checks on people who work with children - including volunteers. This is a law that I consider more harmful than good. This is because, in the vast majority of cases, it turns out that offenders didn't have a disqualifying history even before the checks were put in place.
So you're spending money that the organizations often don't have(why they're depending on volunteers in the first place), in order to prevent not very many potential predators, imposing even more paperwork on organizations while providing what I'd call a false sense of security to parents - because most offenders are the uncaught ones.
Same deal with the sex offender list. Child molesters didn't and don't actually molest children all that often after they're released, list or not, but said list has resulted in a number of murders, both sex offenders and innocents**.
Life requires judgment calls. If you don't like the calls your elected representatives are making, campaign against them in elections. If you get no traction, then it may well be that everyone else is happy with the situation.
Oddly enough, I do this already. There's plenty of 'traction', half the people are upset with one guy, half the other. I also regularly write them to try to convince them to take my side in various matters. My senators, representatives, and such are all familiar with me at this point... Or at least I'm in their databases. I like it when I get a letter back from them.
*One complaint I heard about "Uber drivers aren't checked good enough" was shut up when it turned out that Uber was using the same company and service as the taxi companies were for their check.
**In one case the angry parents went to the apartment in the list and killed the person there - but the sex offender had moved out a year earlier and the dude killed had just moved in, having no idea his address was on the list. So the kids get to deal with daddy in prison for a while for first degree murder.