Advertisement

Editorial: Improve plans to regulate ride-share companies

 
Published Feb. 27, 2015

The Florida Legislature appears poised this year to finally bring ride-share companies such as Uber and Lyft under lawful operation. The bad news is that bills in the House and Senate would weaken the public safety protections that now exist in Hillsborough County, and they could prevent other communities across the state from protecting riders and property alike. There is no need to sacrifice public safety under the guise of innovation, and there is plenty of time to strengthen the legislation as it moves forward.

Uber and Lyft use smartphone apps to connect passengers with drivers who operate their own vehicles. Hillsborough and other jurisdictions have cracked down on these operations, reasonably arguing that the drivers lack the proper permits and insurance coverage. Sen. Jeff Brandes, R-St. Petersburg, has filed legislation (SB 1326) that would establish new state standards for operators that would include requirements for background checks and insurance coverage.

A minimum statewide standard is better than a hodgepodge regulatory structure, because drivers and tourists cross county and city boundaries. It would give paying passengers peace of mind and the industry a greater degree of certainty. But Brandes' bill would allow weaker background checks on Uber and Lyft drivers than what Hillsborough now requires for traditional cabdrivers. It does not expressly require these vehicles to be inspected, as is the case for cabs and taxis. And officials question whether the insurance requirements are clear enough to help anyone injured or harmed by these operators.

While Uber and Lyft are called ride-sharing companies, the term is imprecise at best. Passengers pay — like they do for taxis — to get from one place to another. And traditional taxis can be hailed from smartphones too. These are by every practical definition for-hire vehicles, and they should be in good operating condition and in safe hands when charging to do business on public roads.

Brandes' bill is a starting point for bringing these companies into compliance and for leveling the playing field. It needs better consumer protections, such as stronger background checks on drivers, vehicle inspections and clearer insurance provisions. But it is better than a similar House measure (HB 817), which would prevent local communities such as Hillsborough from taking the extra step to ensure that drivers and vehicles don't pose a danger to passengers and the public. If this is really about competition, and not steering business to one segment of the taxicab industry, then lawmakers should have no problem in bringing these rogue operators into compliance.