Originally Posted by
rickair7777
People are already allowed to assess their own risk by choosing 121 or 135.
They can also take even more control of their own risk by owning/operating their own plane under 91.
Government has taken a complicated, dangerous endeavor and packaged it into convenient risk-tiers for the consumer.
But history has clearly shown that under-regulated commercial ops are dangerous, to the point of causing political blow-back.
Kind of like pharmaceuticals are regulated, cuts down on the snake-oil. Airborne "ride-share" is aviation snake-oil.
I would say it bowls down to your definition of what constitutes under regulated though I'm certainly not saying unregulated. To your point about Part 91 not everyone has the means to own their own aircraft but maybe they want the freedom to access an aircraft on their terms for transportation. I've seen a lot of comments on APC lately of what counts as acceptable loss of life in relation to the COVID crisis. If a Bonanza going down costing up to 6 lives is that acceptable? Hasn't Europe allowed flight sharing? I'll admit I don't know all the details as to what level it is regulated in Europe. Yes pharmaceuticals are and should continue to be regulated but what constitutes enough regulation? Some states have decided marijuana is medicinal and deserving of far less regulation than it once was shifting the responsibility to the user for his own health and yes to not drive impaired where that certainly effects others. As a pilot and a holder of a security clearance I'm obviously not allowed but I do know people who do use it. Nowadays ATC/ADSB and avionics like the G1000 with a simple SD card can record nearly everything that is done with an aircraft and where it goes. If the pilot commits a violation he can certainly face enforcement action with plenty of potential evidence to back it up.