Colorado Senate approves ride-sharing safety bill with substantial amendments
Lawmakers heavily amended a bill on Tuesday that aims to improve safety for users of ride-sharing services like Uber, two weeks after the company threatened to pull out of the state if the legislation became law unchanged.
The Senate then gave preliminary approval to the bill after the amendments. It will be up for a final recorded vote on Wednesday, the last day of the 2025 regular lawmaking session.
'Uber and Lyft have severe safety issues and are in crisis, whether they want to admit it or not. It's why they've spent billions of marketing to convince the public they are safe,' said bill sponsor Sen. Faith Winter, a Broomfield Democrat.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
In Uber's latest U.S. safety report, it found 2,717 reports of sexual assault in 2021 and 2022, with the majority of victims being riders.
'Transportation network companies like Uber and Lyft exercise full control over their platforms and have continually implemented the lowest-cost safety measures, which are inadequate,' Winter said. 'They profit off of people, taking them at their word that they are safe.'
As introduced, House Bill 25-1291 would mandate stricter, more frequent background checks and clearer disqualifications for drivers with histories of assault, harassment, kidnapping, menacing or domestic violence. It would require companies to establish and enforce policies around preventing account sharing or driver impersonation. Drivers would be prohibited from offering food or drinks to riders.
It also would have required continuous audio and visual recording during drives.
The bill was introduced and championed by Rep. Jenny Willford, a Northglenn Democrat, who sued Lyft earlier this year over an alleged sexual assault that occurred last February. The driver during the incident was using someone else's account.
But the provisions faced staunch opposition from ride-sharing companies. Uber said last month, as the bill passed a Senate committee, that it would exit Colorado because the law would create too great a legal risk to operate, according to The Colorado Sun. That prompted a series of sweeping changes on Tuesday as the Senate considered the bill. Winter said sponsors worked with Lyft on the amendments.
The biggest amendment allows for drivers and riders to opt in to video and audio recording instead of requiring it. The state's public utilities commission would adopt rules about the recordings, including education about the safety benefits for companies. Uber has an existing safety feature that allows riders to choose to audio record a ride.
Sponsors said the amendment was hard to accept.
'A driver whose intent is to traffic, kidnap or assault someone is not going to create their own evidence,' bill sponsor Sen. Jessie Danielson, a Wheat Ridge Democrat, said. 'This is the thing we didn't want to give away, but we acknowledge there are concerns from drivers, companies and civil rights groups. We couldn't get there on this go-around, how to require the driver to film and still preserve these rights.'
Another amendment narrows the scope of when someone could bring a lawsuit against a driver or rider to instances of sexual assault, kidnapping, personal injury and death.
A driver would also need to notify the company within 48 hours of a guilty plea for an offense that would disqualify them from driving, and an amendment removed the company's liability if a driver does not report.
Lawmakers also approved an amendment that would allow the water and food ban to be enforced through random compliance checks, and would allow companies to remove driver ratings and reviews they deem bias-motivated.
Additionally, an amendment changed the timeline for a company to review a complaint against a driver to seven days from 72 hours.
It's unclear if the changes will sway Uber's position.
'Last-minute changes and a rushed process have made this legislation incredibly challenging. With new provisions added just this morning without the opportunity to review, we need time to thoroughly evaluate the bill to determine whether it is workable,' a spokesperson wrote in an email. They said Uber saw text of the Senate floor amendments on Monday night.
Winter said sponsors worked with stakeholders, including Lyft, on amendments.
If the Senate passes the bill Wednesday, it will head back to the House to concur with the amendments and then to the governor's desk for a signature.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
14 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump's war on mail-in voting is futile — and could hurt the GOP
President Trump is threatening to wage war on mail-in ballots — and the GOP has to hope he thinks again before the 2026 mid-terms. In a Truth Social post, Trump said he is 'going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS,' and he'll start off with 'an EXECUTIVE ORDER to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 midterm elections.' Trump likes the idea of in-person, same-day voting, which has much to recommend it. Advertisement But mail-in and early voting are so ingrained and widespread that they aren't going anywhere. Most Republicans have concluded that there's no alternative to making use of these modes of voting, and crucially, they managed — most of the time — to get Trump on board in 2024. Advertisement This aided the Republican get-out-the-vote operation in a close election. Clearly, though, Trump believes that mail-in voting is a Democratic plot, and he also hates contemporary voting machines. Old-school paper ballots don't guarantee honesty, however: In an infamous instance of voter fraud, allies of Lyndon Johnson stuffed Box 13 with enough ballots to put him over the top in the very narrow 1948 Democratic Senate primary in Texas. Today's voting machines, moreover, were a reaction to the Florida fiasco in 2000, when punch-card ballots had to be painstakingly examined by hand with a presidential election at stake. Advertisement The fact is that vote-by-mail has been steadily growing since the 1980s, and it needn't favor one side or the other. In Florida, Republicans have long made it a priority to maximize mail voting. A study by the academic Andrew Hall of pre-COVID voting patterns in California, Utah and Washington found a negligible partisan effect as those states rolled out vote-by-mail systems. Advertisement Overall, turnout went up only very slightly, and 'the Democratic share of turnout did not increase appreciably.' Mail-in voting didn't change who was voting, but how they did it — encouraging, as you might expect, voting by mail rather than in-person. Vote-by-mail did have a strong partisan tilt in the COVID election of 2020, in part because Trump inveighed against it. In 2024, Republicans made a concerted effort to make up ground — and succeeded. The GOP went from 24% of the mail vote in the must-win swing state of Pennsylvania in 2020, to 33% in 2024. And Republicans outpaced Democrats in mail-in balloting in Arizona. The advantage to a party of getting people to vote early — whether in person or by mail — is that it takes high-propensity voters off the table. Then, a turnout operation can focus on getting lower-propensity voters to the polls. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters If no one votes until Election Day, party operatives waste time and money right up to the cusp of the election contacting people who are going to vote no matter what. Advertisement None of this is to say that all mail-in voting is equal. So-called universal mail-in voting, or automatically sending a ballot to every registered voter and scattering live ballots around a state, is a bad practice. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! The rules should be more stringent. Advertisement Georgia, for example, gets this right: You have to ask for an absentee ballot and provide your driver's license number or a copy of another form of valid ID. Ballots have to be requested at least 11 days before the election and must be returned by Election Day. The outer 'oath' envelope has to be properly completed or the ballot is subject to being rejected, although the county elections office will provide the voter a chance to 'cure' the envelope. Advertisement It's also important to count early and mail-in ballots quickly, something that too many states fail to do, with California — as usual — the worst offender. States should be expected to abide by whatever rules have been set prior to an election, rather than changing them on the fly, and they should ensure that voter rolls are regularly cleaned up. The real question about vote-by-mail isn't whether it is staying or going, but whether Republicans, too, will take advantage of it. Twitter: @RichLowry
The Hill
44 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democratic 2028 hopefuls should start campaigning now instead of waiting
Put the target on your back. All Democrats who are even remotely thinking of running for president in 2028 must throw their hats into the ring now. There is no need to wait until the last minute, teasing a run until 2027. If democracy is truly at stake, as every Democrat feels it is, then you need to start fighting now. We have seen a remarkable amount of inaction from the Democratic leadership in Washington. The hours-long speeches that really don't do anything, TikTok dances and endless fundraising without anything to show for it has left the Democrats polling worse than President Trump. And Trump is not polling well at all. The Democratic establishment has continually projected a weak and ineffective aura, and voters have noticed. Even with the unpopularity of Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill, ' anger over his immigration actions, and uncertainty over tariffs and Russia, the Democrats are not guaranteed to have a big swing in the midterms. We have seen some Democrats play at taking the fight to Trump but still waffle when it comes to directly challenging him. And that is a problem. This is a new age in American politics when old conventions have flown out the window. There is no need to wait and see. There is no need to have exploratory committees and visit primary states just to hang out. And there is no need to not speak up if you truly think you can do better. Trump announced his 2024 campaign two years before the actual election, but let's be honest — he was running back in 2021. He held rallies, raised money, traveled all over the country, engaged with foreign leaders, and most importantly campaigned in real time that he was a better alternative to the sitting president. Trump led all anti-President Joe Biden talking points on everything from Ukraine, immigration, energy, inflation and the budget. Let's focus on Ukraine. Trump did a great job of convincing the American people that the war would never have happened on his watch, that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was not to be trusted, that the U.S. was just handing over billions of dollars and that he would be the better leader in this situation. It worked. The U.S. was extremely partisan when it came to Russian aggression, with some Republicans parroting Kremlin talking points — not because they like Vladimir Putin, but to stay in Trump's good favor. America now waits to see the fallout from Trump's meetings with Putin and Zelensky. But what they won't get is a Democrat telling the world what he or she would do differently in real time. Yes, we will get plenty of 'Donald Trump Bad' takes from plenty of Democratic politicians. But what we need is specific individuals who would tell us what they would do differently if they were president. Americans don't need to know Trump is bad. They either know he is, or think he isn't. They want someone who is willing to say, 'This is what I would do differently and better and that is why I am running.' Showing yourself as an alternative to Trump isn't the only benefit to announcing early. It also gives you a chance to set the Democratic agenda which, quite frankly, is nonexistent. A major problem with Democrats is that they really don't have a set position other than that Trump is bad. There are plenty of Democrats with great ideas who have been frustrated by the lack of clarity from party leadership. So there is no need to wait for their approval. We have already seen the party establishment take shots at Zohran Mamdani, the left-learning Democratic nominee for mayor of New York. Mamdani is still polling well. Why? Because people know what he stands for. Declaring oneself as a candidate now allows any contender not just to weather the attacks from Republicans but also to present their personal idea for a nationwide liberal platform. Why wait for a Democratic convention in which a party will try to represent themselves as the party for everyone while representing no one fully? People are looking for people to fight not just against Trump but for the soul of the Democratic Party. There is no doubt there are cracks in Democratic unity. We are not unified on Gaza, immigration reform, balancing the budget, paying off the national debt, or a myriad of other issues. And those cracks need to be addressed now, before midterms. I guarantee that House and Senate leadership won't even broach issues in a meaningful manner. But individuals like Govs. Gavin Newsom of California, Wes Moore of Maryland, Andy Brashear of Kentucky, Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, and Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania can. We can hear what former Vice President Kamala Harris, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker will bring to the table as candidates. We can also learn what New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, California Rep. Ro Khanna, and New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would do differently if they were in charge. They can also get in front of donors. No, not just the big time, fancy meal in mansion donors. But the millions of donors who are eager to back a winner. Trump fund raised non-stop for four years after losing in 2020. He built up a massive war chest and donor base that allowed him to steamroll any pretenders in the primaries. Every other Republican who wanted to challenge him waited until 2023 before they announced. It was over before it started. Nikki Haley, who sought to reclaim the Republican Party, was behind before she even had a chance to gain any ground with donors and voters. For 2028, we have no idea if Trump will attempt to circumvent the Constitution and run again. We have no idea if Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio or Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis or any other pretender will run. They are all at the mercy of Trump. Choosing to announce now instead of in 2027, will allow any Democrats to weather the attacks from Trump and his base. Trump won't wait to try to bring someone down and that will allow any contender time to absorb and recover from his attacks. This is something that Kamala Harris was not able to do with her 100-day campaign. Any Democrats announcing their run sooner can also drive a massive wedge into the Republican Party by calling out those who want to run in 2028. If Newsom, Harris, or Brashear started attacking Vance as a presumptive nominee, you can bet that Trump will take that personally and start cutting the wings off any Republican rivals before they can fly. Democrats are tired of waiting to see what happens. They are looking for someone to follow, rally around, fight for, donate to, and feel seen by. They need fighters now. And they want someone brave enough to put the target on their back officially and be willing to weather the storm for the next three years. They want someone to fight for democracy now, which is why any hopefuls should start announcing sooner rather than when it's already too late. Jos Joseph is a published writer and is a graduate of the Harvard Extension School and Ohio State University. He is a Marine veteran who served in Iraq. He currently lives in Anaheim, Calif.
Axios
44 minutes ago
- Axios
Texas Senate passes bill banning delta-8 THC
The Texas Senate on Tuesday advanced a bill banning delta-8 THC in consumable products while allowing low, nonintoxicating levels of THC and CBD to stay on the market. Why it matters: If the bill becomes law, it would impact Texas business owners who produce THC variants and would remove the products from shelves statewide. Driving the news: The bill passed 22-8 on its final reading Tuesday with no deliberation on the floor, just days into the second special legislative session called by Gov. Greg Abbott this year. Flashback: After passing the Senate in the first special session, the bill died when House Democrats broke quorum in protest of Abbott's push for congressional redistricting. Catch up quick: The 2019 Texas farm bill legalized 0.3% THC in consumable products like vapes, edibles and bud. The bill also legalized chemical variations of THC, like delta-8. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick has pushed for a full ban on hemp-derived consumable products, which passed both the Texas Senate and House during the regular legislative session this spring.
