Few industries welcome government regulation, especially since rules can be oppressive and fees often burdensome. But ride-hailing companies such as Uber have been ultra-sensitive to such oversight.

In fact, Uber has threatened to pull out of Honolulu over a proposal that would require all ride-hailing drivers to undergo the same certification process as taxicab drivers — one that includes drivers having Hawaii driver’s licenses, a medical exam, an extensive third-party background check, among other hurdles.

Whether Uber is in or out, the goal of the measure is to protect riders, and those protections should be codified.

The Honolulu City Council is scheduled to take a final vote today on an amended version of Bill 36, which establishes regulatory parity.

What’s needed are reasonable regulations that would level the playing field for both taxicab and ride-hailing drivers, especially since companies such as Uber and Lyft have become significant players in the local transportation market.

The current version of Bill 36 seems to include workable measures, although it would require casual ride-hailing drivers — many of whom take fares for just a few hours a week — to go through more hoops.

A certification process is clearly needed, but the city must ensure the associated fees are not exorbitant.

The latest draft has been significantly scaled back — and rightly so — from a previous bill that would have forced ride-hailing outfits to merely morph into taxicab companies, even requiring meters and rooftop signs.

Under that version, ride-hailing drivers would have had to abandon the use of GPS, a hallmark of their operation.

Lyft officials told the Star-Advertiser that progress is being made with each draft of Bill 36, but that final passage today would be premature.

But Councilwoman Ann Kobayashi, who introduced the measure, noted that even if the measure is passed, there is ample time to make further amendments because regulations wouldn’t take effect until Jan. 15, 2017.

Bottom line: Some form of consumer regulation should be in place.

Timothy Burr, Lyft senior public policy manager, said the company prefers separate, but complementary regulation for its operation rather than lumping both taxicabs and ride-shares under one set of regs.

A rigorous certification process that includes a medical exam, affixing permanent decals on cars and other steps also stifles the ride-share model, Lyft officials said.

As it stands, Lyft and Uber do third-party background checks that run a driver’s name, license and Social Security number through local court records, national criminal databases and a federal sex offender registry — more than what’s required of taxi drivers.

Currently, taxi drivers undergo city background checks that go back only two years and are limited to Hawaii convictions, which is inadequate and became a major issue with a recent sexual assault conviction of a cab driver.

Overall, Uber sees Bill 36 as heavy-handed, but its threat to exit the Honolulu market should not stop necessary reform. Pushback here from ride-hailing companies was expected; they have fought governmental taxi-like regulation in many other jurisdictions.

Uber previously has left San Antonio; Broward County, Fla.; Buffalo, N.Y.; and the Hamptons on Long Island, N.Y. — and even China.

So for Uber, pulling out of Honolulu is not an empty threat.

Honolulu Council members, however, should not let that influence their vote.

Kobayashi said the bill’s intent is not to drive businesses out of Hawaii, but, she added, “we’re trying to make doing business here a fair process and we want to protect the riders.”

Those are reasonable objectives.

Both ride-hailing and taxicab business models share a common goal of taking fares from one place to another in the safest manner possible.

Honolulu needs sensible regulation toward that destination.