The Bermuda Taxi Owners and Operators Association has called on the Government to be more transparent about the launch of a pilot ridesharing programme.

A BTOA spokesman said that while the organisation supports efforts to modernise public transportation in Bermuda, actions must be grounded in a clear understanding of the risks and opportunities.

He added: “At this time, the Government’s public promotion of the rideshare pilot without providing policy documents, impact assessments or consultation records creates uncertainty and undermines public confidence.

“The BTOA stands ready to collaborate constructively on any initiative that improves Bermuda’s transportation environment.

“However, these foundational questions must be answered so that all stakeholders can participate with clarity, fairness and informed understanding.

“Bermuda’s transportation future must be shaped through transparency, evidence and partnership.

“That is how we protect livelihoods, uphold safety, support tourism and build a stronger, more reliable transportation system for all.”

A series of posts on the Government of Bermuda Facebook page advised the public about plans to “modernise” transportation options.

One noted that the Motor Car Act 1951 was being updated.

It said: “The new law introduces ridesharing, app-based services where approved drivers use their privately owned vehicles for hire under clear regulations.

“These services are run by privately operated dispatcher apps, not by Government.”

Another post added: “Ridesharing will give residents and visitors more options for getting around, especially at busy times.

“It also creates opportunities for Bermudians to earn additional income within a regulated transport system.”

A subsequent entry insisted: “The new transportation legislation is designed to complement the taxi industry, not replace it.

“Taxis remain Bermuda’s primary service-for-hire transportation under the updated Motor Car Act.”

In a recent statement, the BTOA questioned what analysis had been done to determine the broader consequences of ridesharing, including its impact on the taxi sector, road usage and public safety.

The BTOA also queried whether the Government had developed a clear policy framework supported by a White Paper and consultation.

The statement said: “Consultation must be more than a courtesy. It must meaningfully shape the policy.

“Promoting a pilot without releasing the policy framework or stakeholder findings undermines the collaborative planning required for responsible transport reform.”

The association also raised the issue of insurance, asking if insurers, banks and commercial institutions were involved in the crafting of the pilot programme.

Its spokesman said: “Commercial passenger transport cannot function without aligned insurance and financing structures.

“The introduction of ridesharing with private vehicles creates new risk categories that must be addressed before any pilot begins.”

The BTOA said that before the pilot was marketed, the public should have access to a White Paper, a draft Bill or amendment outline, impact assessments, stakeholder engagement summaries, regulatory models and insurance frameworks.

The spokesman added: “Without these, stakeholders cannot understand the scope of what is being proposed and legislators cannot provide informed oversight.

“Transparency is the standard for all transformative policy, not an optional step. Bermuda deserves nothing less.”

He said: “The BTOA supports progress that strengthens Bermuda’s transportation system.

“However, transparent planning, stakeholder involvement and responsible governance must guide every major change that affects the livelihoods of regulated operators, the safety of the travelling public, and the long-term sustainability of Bermuda’s transport infrastructure.

“Before Bermuda moves forward, several essential questions must be addressed.

“These questions are not political; they are practical, responsible and necessary for any island considering major structural changes to its transportation framework.”

The Government was contacted for comment but none was received by the time of publication.