Should the state regulate Uber drivers?

The Senate will soon consider legislation regulating Uber and other ride matching companies.

I have deep admiration for the fundamental genius of the new ride-matching companies. By matching riders to drivers more efficiently, they are making transportation much more affordable for consumers. Although I have real sympathy for individuals who have money tied up in taxi medallions, I will not support legislation that will hamper the transition to the superior new model.

There are a few issues that some feel should be addressed by legislation. The most significant is security — does the state need to get involved in vetting and registering ride-share drivers?

Here are our options:

  1. The state could stay out of it. Anyone using a ride-sharing application to call a ride is intrinsically safer than anyone just getting into a cab. The ride-matching app creates a complete audit trail of what vehicle you called and where that vehicle went. You can text a message to your destination so that they can actually watch the ride on GPS until you get safely home.The ride-match companies have a commercial incentive to avoid bad drivers — they run the risk of lawsuits and also simply need to preserve a positive image. Speaking for myself and my family, I am content with the security that I believe these companies already afford. The ride-sharing companies do say that they vet drivers through record checks although they do not authenticate the identity of possible drivers through fingerprinting.
  2. The state could define standards as to the vetting that ride-sharing companies should do and inspect their records periodically. For example, the state could undertake to define the specific defects in a driving or criminal record that would disqualify a person from serving as a driver — too many moving violations, a sex offense within a certain number of years, a drunk driving offense, etc.Certainly, any large ride-sharing business will avoid people whose record suggests they are unfit as a driver. Whether the state should fix the fitness criteria in stone through statute or regulation is a different question. It’s a judgment call — some are inclined to believe that the ride-sharing companies have a short-term profit motivation and will not set a high enough bar. I’m more inclined to credit them with a long term vision and to believe that they will work hard to avoid damage to their reputation.
  3. The state could actually register and certify ride-share drivers by creating a new bureaucracy for that purpose. In the strongest form of this model, drivers would need to present themselves at a central office or at a police station to be fingerprinted and have their identity confirmed and their background checked.I understand the appeal of this approach in a dangerous world, but I believe it offers a false sense of security. Ultimately, no matter what the rules area, you don’t know for sure who is behind the wheel and the real-time location tracking offered by a ride-sharing app is probably the best protection one can get.

Some of the other issues being discussed include standardizing the insurance carried by ride-sharing companies (probably a good idea), whether to protect particular turfs like the convention center for taxis (probably a bad idea) and regulating details of ride-sharing itself — requiring newer vehicles, requiring conspicuous decals, etc. (some good ideas, some bad). I welcome feedback on every facet of the problem, but I am particularly interested in feedback on the security issue.


Thank you!

I’m grateful to all who have taken the time to comment here. As of today, April 3 at 10:30AM, I have read through all the comments. I will not endeavor to reply to them individually, but the conversation is very informative. This is an issue that affects a lot of people in different ways so hearing from a broad range of people on the issue is very valuable. I will post some additional thoughts after I’ve had the chance to gather more information and deliberate. I do feel that this is one of the most important issues we will address in this session.

Published by Will Brownsberger

Will Brownsberger is State Senator from the Second Suffolk and Middlesex District.

214 replies on “Should the state regulate Uber drivers?”

  1. I have three concerns about using ride-sharing. First, how do I know that the driver is an experienced driver; has a vehicle in good working condition; and, most importantly, is this someone I would feel comfortable getting into a car with, by myself. I would support actions that would address my concerns (in the order of 3, 1, 2 above). I think that an audit trail is nice, and helpful, but I don’t know if it will really be a deterence. It will make it easy to find the culprit, but will it reduce the likelihood of crazy people thinking that they can get unknowing solo passengers in to their car by driving for a ride-sharing concern. I do think that the taxi industry needs to get with it. They are very low tech, and half the drivers don’t have a GPS. But , currently, I feel safer paying more money, and feel that the drivers are vetted. How you feel with your family using them is very different from how a single woman feels about using them. I might readily use them if I am going about town with someone else, but, solo, no way yet…. It is a very different perspective.

  2. Hi Will,
    I think the state should stay out of it. Uber is great; it helps the public and it has given independent individuals more control over their lives, as drivers.
    Diane Covert

  3. I think that drivers for both cab and ride share companies should have to meet the same security and insurance standards (an identifier on the car might also avoid any cases of people getting into wrong cars). Then, the artificial limit on the number of taxis should be dropped to have a really level competitive field.

  4. Dear Will:

    I prefer option 1 – the State should stay out of the arena. Any interference by the state will degrade service to the customers and increase costs of government. We have enough challenges right now.

    Kind regards,
    Charlie Foskett

  5. I don’t necessarily agree that security is the only concern; I certainly have concerns with how Uber and other sharing-economy companies provide worker protections. Of the three options you propose, the second seems the most reasonable. Certainly companies have an incentive to drop inadequate drivers from their rolls but I don’t see that the incentive structure is currently such to encourage them to vet drivers proactively.

  6. Thanks for this. The way I see it, the only things the state needs to ensure are that the drivers (a) are held to a basic standard, so not having any criminal offenses that might indicate they’re a risk to passengers, basically no violent offenses and a good driving record, and (b) have enough insurance to keep them from getting screwed in the event of an accident, so liability insurance for when litigious passengers sue after an accident. Other than that, I’d favour option one, a mostly hands off approach.

  7. I like using Uber and Lyft and agree most with option number one–the less regulation the better.

    Some concerns I do have with ride sharing companies:
    Are they bound by the same anti-discrimination laws that taxis are?

    Their drivers are basically employees but they get around paying them any benefits by making them independent contractors. Who gets richest in the sharing economy? The big companies. I would like to see more protections for drivers.

  8. Is there a way to level the playing field?

    Why do taxi cab drivers have to pay so much for a medallion? What’s the point?

    Why can’t traditional taxi cab drivers and uber drivers play by the same rules?

  9. Definitely not for option 1—Option 2 probably provides enough security without overdoing it.I think it is unfair for Uber drivers and the like not to have to have regulations such as taxi drivers have to pay for. Level the playing field, please, for fair competition.

  10. I chose to use Uber today. The driver chose to affiliate with Uber. It worked very well today as it does every day I use it. Including when I needed to get my husband to the Emergency Room. Let’s focus on fixing something that is broken. Thanks for asking.

  11. Senator,

    Please regulate Uber drivers. The general public is at potential risk.

    Robert Scanlon

  12. In the grand Uber debate, there seems to be a lot of talk about medallion cost and trying to re-level the playing field for taxies to continue to be successful. So here is my suggestion: instead of adding regulation in an attempt to hinder the success of Uber and ride share services, why not use the money collected from taxi licensing to help the taxi businesses develop technology to make them better equipped to compete. Passenger safety is a great selling point for legislation but safety is not the real problem in this situation…it is business models and technology advantages giving ride share business the upper hand with consumers.
    As a consumer, I would happily take a cab if I could summons it with an app, track when my ride was arriving, determine the route I want to take, and have a record of my ride and a way to provide feedback. If the technology was comparable, I think taxies would actually be the better choice for consumers because, unlike Uber, rates are consistent. Rather than create bureaucratic obstacles for businesses trying to give the best service to their customers, why not try to help the taxies become competitive using technology.

  13. I would favor option 2. I don’t trust that companies are motivated by long-term goals of good reputation over short-term profits. Maybe some are, but state oversight with standards would offer the public some assurance. (I drove cabs part-time in the 70’s & 80’s for Boston, Brookline and BayState.)

  14. I think we need better security measures. The Ride service, for people with disabilities, has cameras in the cars. This serves as a major deterrent to drivers who attempt to assault passengers or engage in dangerous behavior, such as speeding or driving under the influence.

  15. Option 1 seems the best to me. Ride sharing companies already vet their drivers fairly heavily so putting in regulation will just increase the burden on the state and the taxpayers. Uber and Lyft have come under so much fire in the past few years that they are vetting drivers very heavily.

    Treating them the same as cabs seems to defeat the purpose of ride sharing. If a customer is concerned about the vehicle having strict regulation and inspection around them, they can take a cab. Ride sharing has no burden on the state and I think that riders realize that they are getting into a vehicle that hasn’t been inspected or state vetted.

    As a side note, I’ve never gotten into an uber or lyft that was as dirty, smelly or rickety as a traditional cab so apparently they’re doing something right.

  16. I think the government should stay out of it
    I am 78 and have never used Uber because of security concerns, but your comments convinced me that it is safe.

  17. 1) The state already regulates Uber drivers. It’s called a driver’s license.
    2) The state’s regulation of the MBTA and the DCF, among other institutions, certainly hasn’t increased public safety. In fact, it could be argued regulations have turned out to be the cover under which unsafe practices are born and thrive.
    3) Uber drivers are rated by their customers. Only good drivers survive. Would this were true for taxi drivers, MBTA drivers, etc.

  18. The current controversy over uber and other so-called ‘ride-sharing’ services (which are indistinguishable from taxis) has called attention to the need for safety and security regulation, including standards for driver qualification and vehicular condition, and appropriate levels of insurance for taxi cabs, Uber,and all livery services. Appropriate standards should be established by the legislature of uniform application to all forms of such paid transport.

  19. My biggest concern with these kind of services is that the ride sharing companies are free riding on non commercial insurance policies and will drive added costs to the insurance system that I have to pay. This will I think will hit zip codes of neighborhoods where there are poorer people because some or many people in these areas will attempt to supplement their income. If they get into an accident while not carrying a paying customer and if I understand correctly, Uber does not insure for this scenario, but only has insurance when the Uber car has a customer in it. So the car owner will use the normal non commercial policy to assist with any liability and damages. I think that Massachusetts insurance companies should told of ride sharing use and be allowed to require additional insurance for ride share car service use that covers the car from shift beginning to end. This insurance rider can be provided by either the sharing company or the non-commercial insurance the car owner has. It should be structured so that regular non commercial use of cars is not effected by the ride sharing service. Under our current system, insurance rates will rise in zip codes that have more ride sharing drivers because these drivers will statistically likely to get into more accidents making insurance in these zip codes more costly.

    My second issue is that in Massachusetts criminal background checks are difficult to do well for private citizens because the records are not centralized or on line. The State is in a better position to know how to do a rigorous check in conformance of any rules and law. Given that we are approaching full employment and these are relatively poorly paid jobs, the ride sharing companies looking for workers have an incentive to allow poor risk drivers to work. Requiring some kind of commercial limo license to ensure that public safety is dealt with by a public agency vs privatizing the check is warranted.

  20. Senator Brownsberger,
    I’m convinced by your arguments and don’t feel legislation is required.

    Thank you for your hard work. It is much appreciated.
    Julie Marquardt

  21. i think the security issue is masking the more important issue which is the pitfalls of the ‘share’ economy. While Uber seems like a great idea at first glance, in fact it is that very business model which spells the demise of a functional economy. The reason is that most of the revenue goes to the rapacious developer who wrote the app. Not enough of the resources are allocated to taking care of the people who actually do the work. In this case, it is even worse in that Uber expects the worker to also maintain the vehicle. They do not get paid enough for this. this is an excellent video which explains why Uber is terrible:

    1. Yes. This is a creepy way to enslave the workers who deliver the actual service. It is a menace to society – the more industries start using the same business model, the more we will have more workers living in very precarious conditions with no way to get out of it. At the end of the day, the gig economy is poisonous.

  22. We should regulate Uber in a similar fashion to taxis. There should be insurance requirements and background checks on drivers. Trusting private businesses to regulate themselves in matters of public safety has often proved dangerous. Even restaurants are subject to inspection.

    Make the Uber model compete on an even playing field with taxis. Phase out or reform the medallion system. Eliminate some bad regulations that currently apply to cabs, such as the wasteful prohibitions against picking up street hails in other than home towns.

    Let’s make sure that ride sharing companies are completely safe. At the same time, reform the cab industry so that it can actually compete.

    The public would be best served by varied choices, not favoring the ride sharing industry because it is new and shiny.

  23. I don’t use Uber on my own but my nephew used to drive for the company and also network rider and drivers. I have also taken rides with others who have called a ride. For convenience, this approach can’t be beat. I think the model is unfair to hard-working taxi drivers and that whatever “fix” is found should level the playing field for them.
    I think drivers and their cars should go through the same process that taxi drivers must since they are offering a public service. As a side note, I’d like to add that Uber didn’t provide much advantage or protection to my nephew. He burned out on too much driving and fares that were too low.

    1. I think that Ann brings up a good point. It is unclear how good a deal driving for Uber or Lyfte is in the long run, especially when long term wear and tear on one’s vehicle is considered.

      The ride share model pushes the capital costs onto the driver.

      There was a time when driving a cab was a decent working class job. Now it has turned into what one advocate calls “urban sharecropping”.

      We have an opportunity at this juncture to improve the transport for both the rider and the driver (worker). We should do both.

  24. Very helpful recap of the options. I think the state should stay out of it. I use Lyft a fair amount for trips that are not near to a TStop. I always feel as safe or safer in a Lyft than in a taxi.

  25. I agree with your positions, Senator Brownsberger. The less regulation the better, in general, is my position. Persons with criminal records can be appropriate drivers, and need a way to make a living after they come out of jail. I agree with you that the tracking is the safety element.

  26. Personally, I have no sympathy for the taxi medallion owners. They’ve had a guaranteed monopoly and have provided poor service, while holding us hostage for years.

    It has been far from an event playing field for anyone involved.

    I can’t tell you how many times I had to walk home miles in my twenties because of the lack of medallions. And to be blunt, the limited number of medallions and the monopoly was a big cause of drunk driving in the state. Rarely would it be a wise move to expect you’d be able to find a ride home from a cab in Boston late at night, during dinner time or during a rain storm.

    This not only affects safety, but the economy.

    While I feel badly for the actual drivers as they are hard working, they were already being pillaged by the medallion owners (they’ve had to rent the cabs, pay for the gas and pay a bounty to the owner). Those drivers can easily transition to a newer way of providing a service, and most likely make more money (since their cut is less to Uber than to the medallion owner).

    With all of that said, I’d like to see much less regulation on Uber and other ride-sharing drivers than we historically saw in the corrupt medallion system. Bureaucracy is supposed to make things fairer. In this case, it didn’t work AT ALL.

    But I do think it’s reasonable and prudent to require Uber drivers to carry commercial insurance, as the risk to a customer (and driver) is too great. This is a small cost to the driver and can be based on “how often they’re a driver,” just as a regular car driver can get a low-mileage discount.

    Ride sharing services have significantly improved transportation options, while providing a MUCH improved service to the masses. So I don’t want to see bureaucracy get in the way just for the sake of getting in the way.

    I believe Option 1, with some very minor modifications on minimum requirements (insurance, registration, etc.), serves us the best.

    1. Okay, so what about owner operators who may have sunk their life savings into a single medallion. That’s quite a different case than the few big machers who own hundreds of medallions.

        1. Owner operators are individual drivers who have bought their own cab and medallion. As such they are small business people. They generally operate on a very thin margin as compared to large cab companies. Please don’t make such definitive statements if you don’t know the facts.

  27. 1,Background checks isn’t enough at this moment as possible fingerprints would have to make the screening process more safer.
    2,I’m not surprised if you inclined to agree with them but the real pain rest on uber drivers because we earned way below the minimum wage.
    3,As the law applies to all everyone involved in ride sharing industry,all must be regulated by the same law,as the law applies on taxis why on Uber ?every uber must have a 1 million dollars standardized insurance coverage and have a livery plates
    Finally Sen. Brownsberger ether you for allowing me an opportunity to share this feedback with you

  28. I would say stay out of it for now. If that eventually turns out to be unwise then more regulations can be created as needed, but it seems to be working well currently as is.

  29. Fair competition means that no entity gets an unfair advantage. These companies are competing unfairly with cab and limo service companies. They should have to follow the same rules and pay the same taxes as their competitors.
    The “gig economy” is a modern form of slavery. Drivers for Uber and its ilk barely make even and are dependent on the companies to provide both the rides and payment. In fact they work as employees of these companies (per the IRS test), yet the companies call them “independent contractors”. That’s just a fraud to avoid paying taxes. Regulate them!

  30. I like you analysis of the issue. Security is important but I think you address that with the current situation. It seems like the legislation would be appropriate if problems arise, otherwise stick with option 1 and have the state stay out of it. I would think the state has many more issues of higher priority!
    Thanks for asking!

  31. I also believe the state should stay out of it, though I do think standardized insurance seems smart. Thank you for all your work on our behalf.

  32. I think the state should regulate the process. Business in general has shown over and over that it cannot be trusted without regulations and penalties to back them up.

    The child care regulations are a good model for how this could work.

    Thank you SO MUCH for asking!

  33. I’ a retired school teacher.
    I’ve not owned a car for 26 years.
    I’m 65 & have multiple handicaps. I bicycle.

    Ride share would be great for me especially during the winter when I can’t bike.

    Keep the government out!


  34. I do believe this industry needs to be regulated, especially as related to security measures. I see no downside to requiring drivers to be fingerprinted and having background checks. I do not think it makes any sense to limit the areas where this service can operate as is apparently the case presently (airport, convention center).

  35. I appreciate your clear analysis and agree that the state should not play a role. I do think that standardized insurance coverage could be helpful.

  36. kind of a novice on comparing these two transportation services cab and uber (at times pronounce it with a long u:)
    they provide a similar service and have recent profiling of ‘younger’ people using uber, the tried and true cab is stable and reliable, would consider the option of uber I understand people earn a reasonable amount for this service, not sure how this pay scale compares with the traditional cab service,

  37. I don’t use cabs (except for 3 or 4 times in my entire life) or ride-sharing services or own a smart phone. However, as a consumer interested in a fair and safe deal for all, I believe in a level playing field for taxis and ride services. Ride share drivers need commercial licenses along with CORI checks and fingerprints on file, standard and posted rates, same level of auto insurance, easily identifiable marking on car (magnetic signs could be used), vehicles with all required safety features. Not having an accident on record doesn’t mean that the driver is a good and safe one, maybe just lucky. Ride service companies are only interested in profit and not in their drivers bottom line or well being. and probably not the public either. I disagree with you, Will. Regulations are needed. No need for new agency – use whatever exits now for cabs. Everyone will be better off in the end.

    1. You don’t use taxis or Uber. You have zero personal experience with any of the relevant issues. But you see a ripe opportunity to force others to behave according to your uninformed opinion.

      I think we need to regulate voters.

  38. I use Uber anytime I need transportation other than my car. It is the best service and so much better than taxis! I would not want Uber regulated – they are doing a fine job. I also heard an analysis on WBUR and they said fingerprinting of taxi drivers isn’t happening anymore.

  39. I have not used any of the ride sharing companies. Rarely take a cab. I err on the side of safety. Every time I read or hear of an assault, I say there needs some registrations. The Cab drivers have regulations so should the ride sharing people.

  40. Will,

    First, short answer to your three options. NO to option 1 (no state involvement). The correct answer is for some mix of 2) state to define standards for the ride-sharing companies to enforce and periodically inspect their records and 3) state does some regulation directly with the “new bureaucracy” that you mention.

    I worked with you on flooding around Alewife, so I know you like a big picture as well as details. Big picture first. You can look at this in three contexts: 1) what do you want ride-sharing to look like? 2) how to fairly set rules for two competing industries: medallion taxis and ride-share, and 3) how this this regulation or licensing compare to other professions that Massachusetts licenses?

    First context: Ride-sharing on its own. Stakeholders are the riding public, the drivers and their vehicles, the ride-sharing companies, the credit card companies, and the state, which sets rules of fair play within which they operate.

    I think that absent some direct regulation, drivers will get the short end of the stick. They will get too little of the revenue, as the other intermediaries – the ride-sharing companies who match them with riders, the credit card companies that get a cut of every charges. Already, drivers in some cities are protesting, as increased competition from more drivers and increased cuts to the ride-sharing companies cut their income.

    I think everyone wants the service to be safe for all involved – drivers, passengers, and others on public roads. I think there are some other factors that it’s up to the state to oversee, lest the drivers be given the short end of the stick. A independent contractors, they are the most vulnerable and have the least protection – from unruly passengers, from ride-sharing companies which fail, either in whole or part, what drivers are expecting.

    This brings up another, larger issue. To what extent do you want to let the free market determine what level of service at what cost is available, and to what extent do you want the state to assure some level of service and/or price?

    That brings up the second context: Ride-sharing drivers vs. medallion taxis. In a way, medallion cab drivers, like ride-sharing drivers, are also independent contractors, in that most of them rent time in a medallion cab from the medallion’s owner. The state (or various cities, like Boston) long ago awarded medallion owners a limited and fixed number of licenses (an oligopoly) in order to balance the needs of the riding public and the need of drivers to make an income. Neither are being served well; it’s hard for riders to find a cab, and drivers work long hours with too few fares and too much risk. I don’t think you want to extend the current power imbalance between medallion and their drivers to ride-sharing companies and their drivers.

    That brings up the third context: Massachusetts licenses many professions – from doctors and lawyers to engineers and architects to teachers and cabbies. While the varied natures of the professions requirs variations in licensing, certain standards should be fairly uniform.

    For instance, I’m a teacher, and have to periodically upgrade my license. When, in an attempt to be scrupulously honest and to avoid any “penalties of perjury”, I indicated that I had some unpaid taxes because I had filed for an extension, that held up my license upgrade for a year, most of which was taken up with 1) getting the Dept. of Revenue to issue me a certificate stating that I had paid my taxes and 2) getting the Dept. of Education to respond to that certificate when I sent it in.

    If “your state taxes must be paid” is a condition of licensing teachers, shouldn’t it be a condition of licensing other professions?

    As a teacher, I am required to be fingerprinted every 3 years, and I have to pay the $50 cost of doing so. Given teachers’ access to children, I understand the motivation behind this, but question its efficacy; since I don’t see how matching fingerprints will be crucial to convicting teachers who molest children. As a matter of consistency, either both or neither of medallion and ride-sharing drivers should be fingerprinted, because their jobs are that similar. But how about lawyers and doctors, both of whom have access to the vulnerab le. Or, to bring it closer to home, state legislators, who collectively have had a significan t history of corruption?

    Similarly, the criteria and procedures for license revocation should be similar to identical for medallion drivers and ride-sharing drivers. For example, if bad driving can get you excluded from one, it should get you excluded from the other. That’s a matter of fairness, and also, we don’t want drivers banned from one type of driving to switch to the other. Ditto for ride-sharing companies and medallion owners. That’s not to say exactly what they should be, but they should be similar or identical. If, for example, one can be suspended for not paying its drivers fairly, so should the other.

    Here’s a more relevant example: The number of medallions is fixed, and thus the availability of medallion cabs, despite daily and seasonally fluctuating demand for cabs. So is the fare structure. In contrast, the supply and cost of ride-sharing vehicles are both a matter of market demand, as mediated by the ride-sharing companies. As a matter of equity, at the very least, ride-sharing companies should be obligated, as a condition of operation in an area, to provide certain minimum levels of cab availability within a municipality, and to increase what they pay drivers to assure that supply. Before you respond that that may run into a lack of willing customers, consider that ride-sharing companies can do this two ways. They can either raise the fares that they charge riders, or they can lower the cut that they take to make more income available to drivers.

    There is precedent for this. In regions of the country, Independent System Operators (ISOs) monitor electricity consumption and call up power suppliers to turn generators on or off in response to seasonal, daily, or hourly fluctuations in electricity demand. The ISO must supply the electrical power needed to match fluctuating demand. It selects from different power providers, each with their own price. ISOs rely on baseload generators for the cheapest power. Cold snaps or heat waves create surges in demand, for which ISOs buy some very expensive power, from generating capacity that is there for surges and thus is used only sporadically.

    Here are some more detailed recommendations:
    • Similar to identical regulations and state enforcement for medallion and ride-sharing drivers. Both should be subject to the same sanctions, be it loss of right to drive or otherwise, for poor driving, accidents, criminal behavior, non-payment of taxes, and whatever else the legislature deems appropriate. Fingerprinting for either both or none.
    • Similar to identical regulation for medallion and ride-sharing companies. Both should be subject to shutdown for failure to pay taxes and for failure to pay drivers fairly and on time.
    • Similar to identical requirements for the maintenance and cleanliness of vehicles, for types of payment accepted, and for other vehicle-related issues. In this case, responsibility applies to owners of medallion taxis and personal vehicles of ride-sharing drivers.
    • Regardless of whether it’s drivers or vehicle owners, similar requirements for insurance – on both vehicle and driver, for specific types of losses.

    This brings up another issue: Do you think that, in the long term, the medallion taxi is a viable business model? If you think it is, or that it should be, due to medallion owners’ substantial investment in the medallion, then you and your fellow legislators should endeavor to create as level a playing field as possible for both groups to compete. If you think that the medallion industry is going to go the way of the dodo (extinct), then you need to assure a fair way of phasing out this industry, and you also need to figure out a way to assure sufficient cab service to meet demand that does not leave it entirely up to the market.

    Hope that helps.

    Aram Hollman

  41. I feel for those who bought medallians. That being said i do not support the regulation of this great new efficient service. What I would recommend is a 5 year $.50 surcharge to Uber fares that is put into a pool to reimburse medallian holders to mitigate the loses from the new great technology. This could help them join the uber movement rather than fight it and get some of their investments back to be fair

  42. I think the state should stay out of it, at least for now. If something significant changes, then maybe there can be a reevaluation.

Comments are closed.