No, the argument is flawed because it didn't consider all the evidence and for the evidence it did consider it only considered a single explanation (which is belied by the evidence it ignored).

Rational arguments require considering EVERY possible explanation for ALL the available evidence - and then finding the explanation that fits all of it best.
Anybody who thinks taxis drive safe has never seen them drive. If they don't make much accidents then - the reason MUST be something OTHER than them driving safe. 

And there is an explanation which DOES account for all the facts: that every other driver in this country has learned to be extra careful around taxis and compensate for their dangerous driving and this keeps the accident rates down - but it also has obvious negative impacts on both the safety and time losses of all drivers.