Uber driver June 2014

Smartphone friendly ride-share services like Uber and Lyft, whose affiliated drivers use their own vehicles, have grown in popularity in New Jersey, but now face scrutiny from state regulators and taxi industry groups. Jonathan Cousar, who uses his personal Hyundai Sonata to drive for Uber, operates mostly in Hoboken and Jersey City.

(Alex Remnick/Star-Ledger)

The Internet Age has sparked a remarkable wave of innovation and entrepreneurship. It has transformed the way we communicate ideas, tackle problems and offer new solutions. Oftentimes, the problems consist of overcoming obstacles put in place by governments.

Such is the case with ride-sharing services such as Uber, widely available, including from parts of Hunterdon County; Lyft, most locally in North Jersey; and SideCar, from eight regions in the U.S., on the East Coast in Boston and Washington, D.C.

Some in government, of course, don't like it when people find ways to sidestep their edicts. The special interests who benefit from those governmental directives don't like it, either.

All of which explains why governments and the taxi industry are trying to crack down on ride-sharing services.

As Uber and Lyft have grown in popularity in New Jersey, so has scrutiny from state regulators and taxi industry groups; the Limousine Association of New Jersey has led the charge to include these services in existing regulations.

The Virginia DMV decided to ban the services altogether, and recently sent cease-and-desist letters to Uber and Lyft. The cities of Las Vegas, Miami and Brussels have also banned the services.

Ride-sharing services have raised the ire of taxi drivers in the U.S. and Europe, in such cities as Los Angeles, Chicago, Las Vegas, London, Paris, Berlin, Madrid and Milan.

Cabbies realize that the added information, convenience, potential cost savings and safety that the technology provides to consumers is cutting in to their business.

They rightly note that ride-sharing services do not have to comply with some of the expensive regulations they do. But sympathy for traditional taxis must be tempered by the fact that this restrictive red tape was vigorously lobbied for by the taxi industry itself in order to keep out competition.

Instead of calling for the same anti-competitive laws to be placed on ride-sharing companies and drivers, they should advocate repealing the unnecessary burdens — this doesn't mean safety rules — they have placed on themselves.

But there have been some relative success stories, too. Colorado became the first state to authorize the ride-sharing services in legislation, albeit with some regulations attached.

After initial clashes between ride-sharing companies and the California Public Utilities Commission, California in September became the first state to regulate the services. The Golden State cannot resist its natural urge to foist more rules and regulations on businesses, however. Under Assembly Bill 2293, the state would increase its insurance requirements for ride-sharing drivers for periods between fares.

Consumers and investors love ride-sharing services. This is evidenced by the companies' growing popularity with customers and by Wall Street's judgment of the industry's value. After Uber's latest round of funding, the company is now valued at $18.2 billion.

As is often the case, those in government are harming consumers while claiming to protect them.

Ride-sharing companies already offer extensive safety protections such as criminal and driving record background checks, insurance requirements, vehicle inspections, customer rating systems and other measures — not because government requires them, but because they know customers value such protections and they must offer them to be profitable.

State and local governments should embrace innovative ideas and services such as ride-sharing that provide jobs and benefit consumers, rather than stifling them with endless regulations.

More Hunterdon County news: NJ.com/hunterdon • Facebook • Twitter