While lawmakers in Colorado move to strengthen protections for riders of Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) through HB25-1291, there’s a glaring loophole that could put our most vulnerable passengers — students — at risk.
HopSkipDrive markets itself as a safe, student-focused alternative to Uber or Lyft — but operates similarly by contracting with drivers through an app to transport children, often for school districts. Despite offering rides for minors, it’s unclear whether HopSkipDrive will be held to the same standards as TNCs under the new legislation.
Here’s what the bill does:
· Limits drivers to 10 consecutive hours to prevent fatigue.
· Requires biometric ID verification and frequent fingerprint-based background checks.
· Mandates continuous audio and video recording for every ride (with opt-outs allowed).
· Requires fast transparency when a complaint is filed.
· Holds companies accountable under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.
All common-sense safeguards, especially when you’re transporting kids.
So what’s the problem?
HB25-1291 doesn’t clearly spell out whether student transport companies like HopSkipDrive are included. And based on how legislation like this usually plays out, HopSkipDrive is already lobbying behind the scenes to opt out or classify themselves differently.
Why? Because compliance would cost them. Cameras, background checks, tighter oversight — all of it means less profit, more accountability. And what happens if they’re allowed to opt out? Children — many with disabilities, IEPs, or mental health concerns — continue riding in cars with far fewer protections than adults using Uber.
Let that sink in:
Adults get biometric ID, continuous recording, and guaranteed complaint responses within 24 hours.
But a 9-year-old riding to school with a stranger? Maybe not.
“We Already Do That” — So Why Not Put It in Writing?
HopSkipDrive is reportedly telling lawmakers:
“We already follow all of these safety measures. There’s no need to include us in the bill.”
But here’s the thing: If they’re already doing it, there should be zero problem being legally required to. Unless, of course, they want the freedom to stop doing it at any time.
The Reality of “Voluntary” Safety Measures
HopSkipDrive is regulated by rules promulgated from SB22-144, found in 4 CCR 723-6 (starting on page 102). These rules do not require fingerprint background checks unless a school or district contract explicitly includes them. As stated in Rule 6724(d):
“… If a fingerprint background check for a driver is required, as specified in a contract with a school or school district, the criminal history record check shall be completed pursuant to the procedures set forth in § 40-10.1-110, C.R.S…”
Other current rules only require GPS monitoring for “real-time safety anomalies” — not continuous audio or video recording — and largely rely on self-regulation. Drivers are expected to self-report any new criminal convictions, and oversight from the state only happens once every three years through a review process by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and the Colorado Department of Education (CDE).
In contrast, HB25-1291 would:
· Mandate fingerprint-based checks before hire and every six months thereafter
· Require audio/video recording of rides (with opt-outs)
· Shift oversight from company discretion to state enforcement
The contrast is clear: what HopSkipDrive markets as safety is not enforced by law — and often left up to self-regulation, contracts, or internal policy.
What HopSkipDrive promises and what they’re legally obligated to do are two very different things.
Forced Arbitration: The Hidden Danger
Companies like Uber, Lyft, and HopSkipDrive use mandatory arbitration clauses that force users and drivers to give up their right to sue in court. These agreements:
· Block class actions
· Force disputes into secretive arbitration
· Waive core consumer rights
HB25-1291 directly challenges this, declaring it void to waive certain rights. That means victims of misconduct might finally get their day in court — if the company is subject to the bill. If HopSkipDrive is carved out? The arbitration shield stays up. Even if something terrible happens.
Lawmakers should not accept vague promises of voluntary compliance. If HopSkipDrive is already doing all the right things, it should have no objection to being included in the bill. In fact, they should demand it, to raise the bar for the entire industry.
Because child safety shouldn’t rely on corporate goodwill. It should be the law.
HB25-1291 must apply to all companies transporting children — without exception.
