U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Michael Bennet

(D) Phil Weiser

60%↑

50%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Jena Griswold

60%↑

40%↑

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) J. Danielson

(R) Sheri Davis

50%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(D) Jeff Bridges

(R) Kevin Grantham

40%

30%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Trisha Calvarese

(D) John Padora

90%

20%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

45%↓

40%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

April 24, 2025 11:00 AM UTC

Uber Bullies Lawmakers To Protect Bad Drivers

1 Comments
by: Colorado Pols

As Marissa Ventrelli reports for the Colorado Springs Gazette’s political blog, a bill to require rideshare driving companies take additional steps to protect the safety of riders is stoking controversy after rideshare giant Uber threatened to completely pull out of the state should the bill be signed into law:

House Bill 1291 would require rideshare companies to conduct background checks on drivers every six months and prohibit them from hiring applicants who have been convicted of crimes, including domestic violence, stalking, and harassment.

The legislation — sponsored by Reps. Jenny Willford, D-Northglenn, and Meg Froelich, D-Englewood, and Sens. Faith Winter, D-Westminster, and Jessie Danielson, D-Wheat Ridge — also requires companies to investigate complaints about drivers within 72 hours. If the allegations are found to likely be true, they must deactivate the driver’s account.

The bill also requires rideshare companies to record audio and video throughout each ride.

In addition, the bill would crack down on the widespread “sharing” of rideshare accounts, a major security risk that effectively nullifies the company’s screening. As for the requirement that rideshare drivers record audio and video of their rides, the technology needed for that is available for less than $50 on Amazon. The real problem for Uber would more likely be the establishment of a right of passengers to sue over violations–and unless you’re a corporate bean-counter or on retainer to Uber you’re likely to support that provision as well.

And perhaps most importantly as the Colorado Sun’s Jesse Paul explains, Uber’s threat to pull out of Colorado entirely if this bill passes is in all probability toothless:

Uber’s threat to exit Colorado represents an extraordinary response to a bill by a private company. While organizations frequently warn lawmakers about how legislation will affect their operations or bottom line, they rarely threaten to leave Colorado — at least publicly — as a result of a policy change.

And when they do make the threat, they rarely follow through.

The last notable example of a company making good on its vow to leave the state was about a decade ago, when Magpul Industries left Colorado following the passage of a measure limiting the number of bullets that a gun magazine can contain.

Readers will recall that the real reason for plastic gun part manufacturer Magpul’s relocation out of Colorado was millions in incentives offered by other states, not Colorado’s magazine limit law. But either way, the choice by a corporation to abandon millions of dollars in revenue would only rationally be made if the new regulations on their business would actually result in losses rather than profits, and this bill simply would not do that. Uber might not like being required to better screen drivers and crack down on account sharing, but doing so will not break their business model despite their protestations today. And if their business model really doesn’t allow for a little more attention to keeping passengers safe, maybe it’s time for alternatives.

On general principles, threats by corporations that would ultimately hurt those corporations more than our local economy should not be taken too seriously. With that said, we hope that all parties can come to an agreement on what seems like a no-brainer. Last year, the legislature passed a bill to protect drivers–legislation Uber sued and lost the fight to stop from taking effect, and they haven’t left the state over it. This year, it’s about protecting passengers.

As long as there is money to be made, compliance always finds a way.

One thought on “Uber Bullies Lawmakers To Protect Bad Drivers”

JeffcoBlue says:

April 24, 2025 at 2:48 pm

I only use Uber Eats but I can personally attest to the problem with drivers who don't match the photo on the app. It seems like a lot of people are delivering using other people's accounts and that would make me nervous about getting into their car for sure.

Log in to Reply

Login

Lost Password

Uber Bullies Lawmakers To Protect Bad Drivers

Comments

One thought on “Uber Bullies Lawmakers To Protect Bad Drivers”

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Recent Comments

Posts about

Posts about

Posts about

Posts about

Posts about

Newsletter