Uber has had its share of controversies, but it’s becoming increasingly difficult to argue against it.
On March 16, the San Francisco-based company announced plans to target the Springfield market pending Missouri legislation on transportation network companies, the technical name for ride-hailing services like Uber and competitor Lyft. It could happen by year’s end.
Uber even appears to be playing nice, despite past practices that have cast a shadow on that notion.
In having conversation and writing columns on Uber, I’ve seen ethical questions arise. And for good reason.
The most common and most important are these two: Is Uber safe? Is it regulated?
They’re valid questions. While my Uber rides in San Francisco and Fayetteville, Ark., never felt unsafe, media reports of criminals behind the wheel have surfaced. Last month’s shooting spree by an Uber driver in Kalamazoo, Mich., is particularly unnerving.
Additionally, taxi companies have lobbied against the services, often because of the lack of regulation but probably fearing competition.
Despite their motives, taxi industry arguments that Uber and similar services should be regulated similarly are sound. No one wants to feel unsafe, and it’s an obligation of the law to protect the public.
Thankfully, regulation appears to be catching up to the quick pace of the trendy service. According to Uber, 28 states, including Illinois and Kansas, have enacted laws to protect riders.
While Uber’s own screening process is basic and arguably inadequate, its plans for Missouri seem to fall in line with neighboring states that have put rules in place.
By sending out its news release, Uber is rooting for Show-Me State legislation under Senate Bill 991 and House Bill 2330.
Designed similarly and fairly in the vein of taxi regulations, the bills call on transportation network companies’ drivers to obtain permits from the state Department of Revenue, pass background checks and meet minimum insurance requirements.
These types of rules are necessary for a service like Uber to be accepted by the masses. It makes sense for the company to play by the rules. In the same climate as taxis, it can truly flourish when customers see the benefits of service are arguably more convenient than cabs.
Plus, Uber claims 10,000 jobs would become available in Springfield, Jefferson City, St. Charles and St. Joseph if the legislation passes. That’s certainly eye-catching and seems high, but there definitely would be a large economic impact.
While I would never advocate for taxi companies to be put out of business, ride-hailing services are simply a better experience.
The technology used to locate you, the convenience of using an app on your smartphone and social media capabilities that promote a rating system are becoming industry standbys. If others can’t adjust, it may be game over for them.
Now, it’s ultimately up to you. Do you want Uber – and potentially other ride-hailing companies – in the Queen City?
If so, speak up. Uber appears to listen to markets with loud voices; see @SGFWantsUber on Twitter. In February, the company was advertising for drivers in Springfield for at least the second time.
In terms of legislation, senators and representatives work for us. Want ride-hailing services to have proper rules? Tell them.
The good news is there’s a chance to get involved on the local level as well.
On March 21, Springfield City Council is scheduled to hold a first reading and public forum on whether to adopt regulations on transportation network companies. The state regulations would ultimately supersede these rules, but either way, there are ears out there listening and eyes reading.
“It sets up the requirements in a parallel fashion to our taxi regulations,” Assistant City Manager Collin Quigley told me of the proposal. “Our ordinances don’t allow those companies at this point.”
It’s about time they did.
By the end of 2016, a common question in the Queen City may be, “You want to grab an Uber?”
Web Producer Geoff Pickle can be reached at gpickle@sbj.net.
