The observation that Uber, Lyft, and other ride-sharing companies are prime examples of the power of the innovative free market has by now become almost a cliché. Nevertheless, it remains true. As these new entrants to the transportation services world mature, however, lawmakers around the country are rightly asking whether more stringent consumer safety regulations are necessary. Some are also questioning whether economic regulations designed to keep taxis competitive might also help better define the market.

In light of recent events like an Uber driver allegedly murdering eight individuals in between rides in Kalamazoo, Mich. and charges of assault filed against an Uber driver in Boston, the need for further regulation of the ride-sharing industry is clear. This regulation, however, should be aimed at promoting the safety of passengers, not protecting taxis at the expense of ride-sharing services. Limiting this new and exciting market simply to preserve an aging industry would be counterintuitive.

A bill put forth by Governor Charlie D. Baker '79 in the Massachusetts legislature would address many of the safety gaps in the ride-sharing industry by increasing state oversight of background checks for drivers, as well as requiring companies to maintain higher and more consistent levels of insurance. Although some companies—such as Uber and Lyft—already require background checks, Governor Baker’s proposal would add an additional level of security supervised by the Commonwealth’s Department of Public Utilities. State Senator Linda Dorcena Forry and Representative Michael Moran have also presented a bill that would require fingerprinting as part of drivers’ background checks. We believe that all these proposals are reasonable changes that would help ensure the well being of passengers, while also safeguarding the continued innovation and development of these services.

Other elements of Forry and Moran’s bill, however, would likely stifle the competitiveness of ride-sharing companies and harm consumers. In particular, arbitrary limitations on the ability of ride-share drivers to operate at airports and on the age of their vehicles would inconvenience passengers and increase costs with negligible safety benefits. These outcomes would be particularly unfortunate given that the taxi industry has begun to rise to the challenge posed by ride-sharing companies. Rather than relying on measures like striking, taxis in the Greater Boston area are focusing on improving the efficiency and accessibility of their own services to increase competitiveness. One example is the new partnership with the ride-hailing app Curb to bring the convenience of Uber and Lyft to taxi customers. Innovations likes this one will only continue to improve service for all customers if policymakers allow competition to thrive.

Their success notwithstanding, one area in which ride-sharing companies must improve is in their attitude towards people with disabilities. In particular, Uber has claimed that it does not have the legal duty to ensure that drivers comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act because they are independent contractors. With disability rights activists and the Department of Justice dismissing this argument, it is time for Uber and other ride-sharing companies to stop hiding behind legal technicalities and abide by civil rights legislation.

Despite this blemish on their records, ride-sharing services have ultimately had a positive effect on the transportation market. As lawmakers devise needed safety regulations for these companies, they must resist the temptation to impose burdensome economic ones.