Last week a teenager was killed when the Uber ride she was in crashed into the back of a lorry. The lorry had apparently been in dispute with a van, and the van overtook the lorry and stopped in front of it; the Uber car then hit the lorry.

It was believed to be the first-ever fatal accident involving a private-hire car.

Enter The Straits Times' Adrian Lim who wrote an analysis of the incident titled, "Uber convenient, but also uber safe?"

Lim pointed out that aside from this accident, Uber had suspended two drivers previously. One for allegedly drink-driving, another for harassing a female passenger. Lim then wondered whether the convenience afforded by private-hire cars comes at a price.

He noted that private-hire drivers currently do not receive any mandatory training and questioned if private-hire car insurance covered both driver and passenger.

Lim did mention that "it is difficult to ascertain factually whether private-hire car services are more or less safe than the taxi incumbents. Both Uber and GrabCar have been tight-lipped about accident rates. While taxi operators do not make public their accident numbers, they are accountable to LTA."

However, the Internet took issue with the article, which is likely caused by the provocative headline.

Here are the top comments on Facebook in response to the article:

Talking about logical fallacies, one can argue with similar fallacious reasoning that since taxi drivers go through more mandatory training than private-hire drivers, and there have been more accidents involving taxis, we may conclude that mandatory training might be the cause of accidents.

But of course ST's commentary on this issue does voice concern for certain people, like this netizen:

And what are the requirements to be an Uber driver (at the moment before regulation sets in):

If you like what you read, follow us on Facebook and Twitter to get the latest updates.