Then the solution is to fix that, not to produce an alternate system where everyone concerned has less rights, except for the company running the scheme. Also, where I live, it’s not that hard to do, and kick up a stink. Mileage (ahem) varies.
And I’m afraid that means that in your particular state, they’ve found a useful set of rules to cover their activities, but that’s all. It meets the letter of the law there, but no rides are being ‘shared’ (not by any common definition of ‘rideshare’ [Well, any definition that isn’t an attempt to legally codify a cooperative practice to generally save fuel and pollution by all sharing a ride you were all making anyway, together, for the good of the planet and to reduce costs for all parties.])
The Ubers (especially) and their ilk run the same service lots of places where ‘ridesharing rules’ don’t exist (like near me). And it’s the exact same service which you’ve yourself have described in collection as ‘like a taxi, but with less protection for everyone’. And their lawyers and management fight just as hard in those places to wiggle away from protections. (and worse!)
(The ridesharing bit is kinda like the reasons that McDonald-corporate cheerily gives their new staff about the perils of unionising. It’s legal, but rotten and bad-faith on their part - an attempt to use and stretch local law as part of a deliberate business model, not an attempt to follow local law as good citizens - as proved by what happened when they first opened in Germany.
It’s their figleaf that they use for staff - this isn’t about people who all go in the same direction splitting costs to make more efficient use of their four seater vehicles, It’s about ‘taxi-light’, where the companies hold all the cards and visitors and drivers and customers alike hold all the risk.)
