Gov. Jared Polis vetoed a bill last year that would have required ride-share companies such as Uber and Lyft  to improve security for passengers, but efforts continue to make sure that people using the services are safe. Polis vetoed House Bill 1291 because he believed the regulations were unworkab le and could lead to the ride-share companies leaving Colorado. But he directed state agencies to explore what administrative changes could be made to strengthen protections and what targeted policy changes lawmakers could tackle in this year’s legislative session. The Colorado Public Utilities Commission, or the PUC, which oversees certain aspects of ride-share companies, is seeking public comments on changing state rules. And at the state Capitol, a sponsor of the vetoed bill says new legislation is in the works. One area of focus for the PUC is preventing so-called “imposter” drivers, people who use someone else’s identity to impersonate a legitimate driver. One of the sponsors of last year’s ride-share bill, Democratic Rep. Jenny Willford of Northglenn, filed a lawsuit against Lyft and a local transportation business, saying the driver sexually assaulted her in 2024. She said the man didn’t match the profile of the driver who was supposed to pick her up. Lyft has denied the allegations. Lyft and Uber are facing thousands of sexual assault lawsuits nationwide, The New York Times reported in December. Uber’s process for vetting drivers potentially creates gaps in information and drivers convicted of certain crimes are approved if the convictions are at least 7-years-old, according to the story. Both companies said in emails that they’re committed to the safety of drivers and riders. Lyft said in a report on its safety record from 2020 through 2022 that 99.9998% of trips occurred without the kind of incidents outlined in the report: sexual assaults, fatal accidents and fatal assaults. Uber said in a statement that data provided as part of an ongoing lawsuit shows that reports of sexual assault or misconduct amounted to just 0.006% of the 6.3 billion trips in the U.S. from 2017 to 2022. As the PUC addresses safety concerns involving ride-sharing services, it wants to raise public awareness that it has authority over the companies, what it calls transportation network companies. In 2014, Colorado became the first state to regulate the service, covering rider and driver safety but not fares. The agency takes complaints, investigates and imposes fines. The PUC oversees five ride-hailing companies, but Uber and Lyft are the major ones. The industry provided about 35 million rides statewide in 2024, said PUC Director Rebecca White. “One of the things we’re struggling with is that most, if not all ride-share customers, don’t know the PUC is the regulatory authority here,” White said. “Compared to towing, where we get a whole lot of calls and complaints, we get very few for ride-share companies.” The agency is working to change that through a site where people can post comments and get information on filing complaints, said PUC spokeswoman Megan Castle. The PUC will soon launch a safety and outreach campaign that could include posting information in common spots where people catch rides. The agency is also looking at addressing drivers refusing rides because of a person’s ethnicity, race, gender, disability and other factors. White said ride refusals are particularly an issue for members of the blind community who travel with service animals. The second time around “We’re delighted to have the PUC take on as much as  they are willing to take on,” said Rep. Meg Froelich, a Democrat from Englewood and a sponsor of the vetoed ride-share legislation. She said sponsors of a new bill will balance it with what might end up in separate legislation reauthorizing the PUC. Agencies up for reauthorization undergo program reviews that contain recommendations. The review of the PUC by the Department of Regulatory Agencies includes five recommendations involving ride-share companies. DORA recommended requiring the companies use facial recognition technology to prevent people from impersonating a legitimate driver and establishing a criminal penalty if someone does it. Other recommendations are to allow the PUC to make redacted rider-refusal reports public; clarify the process for investigating rider-refusal complaints and raising the $550 fine; and require ride-share companies to submit annual reports on all safety-related incident reports and make redacted reports publicly available. The 2025 bill that passed the legislature with bipartisan support would have allowed drivers or riders to request that trips be recorded. Ride-share companies would have been required to conduct background checks on drivers at least every six months. People convicted of certain crimes couldn’t have worked as drivers. Companies would have had to report sexual assaults and other misconduct to lawmakers on a regular basis. Polis said in a letter to legislators on his veto that while he wants to ensure ride-share companies are more accountable for the safety of drivers and riders, the bill went beyond “a narrowly tailored public safety focus.” He said the provision for recording rides could conflict with state privacy laws. Organizations, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving, were worried about the disruption of ride-share services, Polis said. The bill’s sponsors, who met with Uber and Lyft, accused Polis of repeating the companies’ “talking points” and criticized him for waiting until the final days of the session to reject the legislation. “Uber has a lot of resources, and they went all in on making sure they did everything they could to make sure the bill didn’t pass. And when it passed, they did everything they could to encourage a veto,” Froelich said. Uber, the country’s dominant ride-share provider, contacted people who had used the service, telling them that the company would leave the state if the bill passed, Froelich said. “That’s scary to people who rely on ride shares to go to medical appointments, to elderly people who don’t drive.” Related Articles Zaidy’s owner, weight loss doctor introduce product to combat ‘Ozempic face’ Top 10 Denver area home sales of 2025: Cherry Hills dominates list Another quantum computing company looking at Boulder 1920s City Park West apartment building demoed for $36M project Community Banks of Colorado to rebrand after acquisition In an email, Uber acknowledged contacting riders about its opposition to the bill. “We communicated our concerns to our users because the legislation, if passed, would have created an environment where we simply could not continue to operate.” The company said it devoted months to “negotiating data‑driven, safety‑centered language,” but was shut out of final discussions. Froelich said Lyft stuck with negotiations until the end, but Uber didn’t. Uber said it has reached out to the sponsors of the ride-share legislation to offer the company’s collaboration and has actively worked with the PUC on safety policies. Lyft said in an email that it takes safety seriously and is committed to meeting with legislators and regulators. “We engaged productively last year and welcome the opportunity to work together on solutions that strengthen safety for riders and drivers while preserving access to flexible work and reliable transportation,” the company added. Get more business news by signing up for our Economy Now newsletter. ...read more read less