Boston Police Commissioner William B. Evans and police chiefs across the state have blasted Beacon Hill lawmakers’ latest effort to regulate the ride-sharing industry as “woefully insufficient’’ to protect passengers.

The newly introduced state Senate bill takes a different approach than a bill passed by the House in March, and would largely preserve the status quo for ride-hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft. The companies have vigorously opposed efforts to further screen their drivers, even as they have been roiled by allegations of sexual assault.

Unlike the House bill, the Senate measure introduced Thursday would not demand that drivers for ride-sharing companies undergo additional state background checks or certification on top of the private checks their companies require.

“Allowing passengers to enter a vehicle-for-hire without a full and comprehensive understanding of the person behind the wheel puts these passengers in harm’s way,’’ Evans and the chiefs said in a statement, urging lawmakers to pass “a comprehensive bill which sufficiently protects the public.’’

The chiefs called for measures beyond those outlined even in the House bill, including a requirement that all drivers to be fingerprinted — a practice that the Boston Police Department began requiring for city taxi drivers in February.

With the help of fingerprint checks, Evans said, his department has disqualified or terminated hackney licenses for three people who had been convicted of rape, attempted murder, or indecent sexual assault on a minor.

Under the Senate bill, Evans said, those people could still provide rides to unsuspecting passengers.

Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association executive director Mark Leahy rejected suggestions by critics, including former USattorney general Eric Holder, that fingerprinting can be inaccurate or discriminatory toward minorities.

“Honestly, when it comes to the application process for a job, I really don’t see anything discriminatory about it,’’ Leahy said. “In terms of it not being reliable, I will tell you that it’s far more reliable than doing nothing.’’

Massachusetts District Attorneys Association president David Capeless, who is the Berkshire district attorney, said his organization has also called for more comprehensive background checks for ride-sharing service drivers that include fingerprinting. Without it, Capeless said, companies don’t even know if an applicant is using his or her real name.

But a spokeswoman for Uber argued Friday that the company’s screening method is more effective.

“Uber’s approach to safety includes safeguards before, during, and after every trip, including a thorough background screening process that includes searching conviction court records at the county courthouse level,’’ the spokeswoman, Carlie Waibel, said.

The police chiefs also took issue with the Senate bill’s background check approach, which would only look at a driver’s criminal history for the past seven years.

“This means that an individual who committed a violent crime, like rape or murder, more than seven years ago, could be cleared to drive,’’ the chiefs said.

Leahy did not specify a preferred length of time to review, but “when you start to talk about crimes of significant violence,’’ he said, “I probably would be leaning much toward the higher end of the scale.’’

On that requirement, the Senate proposal is actually more restrictive than the Boston Police Department’s current standards for hackney drivers, which only prohibit a driver from having felony convictions within the last five years.

However, a Police Department spokesman said the five-year restriction is only a starting point and does not preclude the department from denying an applicant with older convictions.

The chiefs also recommended that ride-hailing companies be required to report all allegations of criminal misconduct to police, rather than handle such complaints internally. The Senate bill would only require ride-sharing companies to provide information to the police “upon request.’’

The Senate will discuss the proposed legislation on June 29. If the measure is passed, lawmakers would need to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate bills before submitting it to the governor.

Asked if the police chiefs’ association support the House version over the Senate’s, Leahy said, “I think we will probably be supportive of any bill that just incorporates a few more things that we think are necessary to protect the public. We have a very open mind about it.’’

Nicole Dungca of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Vivian Wang can be reached at vivian.wang@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter @vwang3. John R. Ellement can be reached at ellement@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @JREbosglobe.