Op-Ed: Same ride, different rules: Why public safety demands consistent standards

When we launched SilverRide more than a decade ago, we knew safety would be the cornerstone of everything we built. It had to be. We were helping older adults and people with disabilities get to family events, the grocery store or go shopping with friends—places that define independence. There was no room to cut corners. 

But today, not all riders are protected equally, even when public dollars are funding the trip. 

Most people assume that when they step into a shared ride vehicle—whether arranged by a transit agency or booked through an app—their driver has been properly screened and credentialed. But in today’s transit landscape, that assumption isn’t always true. 

According to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), more than 100 million annual trips are provided through third-party operators with public transit agencies, including rideshare services and mobility providers that may not be held to the same safety rules as traditional transit systems. 

In other words: two different providers working with the same agency could be held to very different safety standards behind the wheel. 

The policy gap behind the wheel 

To understand how we got here, you have to look back. 

Under federal transit law (49 U.S.C. § 5331), any public transportation operation receiving FTA funding through the Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5307), the Capital Investment Grant Program (Section 5309) or the Rural Area Formula Program (Section 5311) must implement controlled substance and alcohol testing for individuals in safety-sensitive roles.  

This includes both employees and independent contractors who operate, dispatch or maintain revenue service vehicles.  

These regulations followed growing congressional concern in the 1980s about drug and alcohol use among transit operators. In response, the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 required U.S. Department of Transportation-regulated employers to implement testing programs. 

However, not all services that move people fall neatly into the traditional transit model. A 1994 exemption, often referred to as the “taxicab exemption,” allows transit agencies to contract with multiple taxi companies without subjecting those drivers to FTA drug and alcohol testing, provided the companies use their own vehicles, operate independently and serve the general public—meaning passengers can choose which company to use. 

That policy may have made sense when a taxi meant a handful of medallion cars hailed curbside, but times and technology have changed. 

Today, that exemption is sometimes applied to broader contracted services, including those that functionally resemble transit: app-based platforms, on-demand mobility solutions and other innovative models that are often operating under public funding and in coordination with transit agencies. 

Let me be clear: This isn’t an indictment of those models. In fact, a diverse mix of service types can offer agencies greater flexibility, improve access and enhance the rider experience, especially when thoughtfully integrated into the transit ecosystem. SilverRide exemplifies this approach. As a licensed transportation network company (TNC), we operate with a deep understanding of innovation, safety and accountability.  

What’s needed is not disparity but clarity across the board. When services are publicly funded, they should meet baseline public safety expectations, regardless of what the vehicle or dispatch system looks like. 

The FTA’s proposed clarification to this exemption aims to close that gap. It doesn’t penalize innovation; it simply brings oversight in line with how the world works today. 

When public dollars move people, public safety should move with them. That’s a shared responsibility we all carry. 

Inconsistency is the real risk 

Let’s be honest. Most providers care deeply about the safety of their riders, but this conversation isn’t about intentions. It’s about consistency. 

Drug and alcohol testing shouldn’t be a nice-to-have. It should be as basic as a background check or a valid driver’s license, especially when the ride is paid for with public funds. 

When some drivers are tested and others aren’t—even if they both deliver rides for the same agency—it creates avoidable risk. That risk is felt most acutely by those who rely on the system the most. 

Older adults and people with disabilities often need more than a ride. They need someone present to provide guidance and human presence through the first and last 50 feet, helping them to a door, alerting them to uneven surfaces or tripping hazards or ensuring they reach a waiting room safely before departing. Individuals in these circumstances may also be less able to recognize when a driver is under the influence due to sensory or cognitive impairments. 

That level of care and attentiveness isn’t incidental, and it’s the responsibility SilverRide was built around. It’s also why the standards governing public mobility services need to be clear and consistent. 

When expectations vary by provider, trust breaks down. Riders don’t always know who’s driving, what training they’ve had or credentials they’ve earned or what protections are in place. 

We can do better. 

The path forward: Fair, clear and scalable standards 

Some providers are already going beyond the minimums because they believe their riders deserve it. 

For example, every single SilverRide driver is an independent contractor, but we still ensure they pass Level II background checks, complete drug and alcohol testing and verify robust credentialing before they ever serve a rider on our platform. 

This isn’t about checking boxes. It’s about building trust and ensuring safety. 

The FTA’s proposed clarification is a chance to modernize an outdated rule, but it only works if providers, agencies and regulators work together. Transit agencies must lead, but we, as partners, must help shape the solution. 

Let’s build standards that are: 

• Equitable: No special carve-outs based on provider type. 
• Transparent: Easy to verify. 
• Efficient: Simple to implement. 
• Adaptable: Able to evolve alongside technology. 

This isn’t about red tape. It’s about public safety, public dollars and public trust. Whether you’re in a 40-foot bus or a four-door car, your safety shouldn’t depend on what platform was used to book the ride or who is providing it. 

We can modernize transit while preserving trust and it starts by making sure the rules match the ride.