Here’s what happened when my family got hit while riding in a Lyft
geekwire.com> Good thing the Seattle City Council is essentially shutting Lyft down in the name of safety and ‘protecting me’ from this company.
Sorry to see this kind of misinformation about why the Seattle City Council acted. Taxi drivers pay commercial driver's insurance ($7000-$11000/yr) that insures the city against third party personal injury and property damage claims due to taxi accidents.
Ride-sharing companies offer cheaper fares because they don't pay for the same level of insurance, shifting the burden of liability on to riders, tax payers and the general public.
Sounds like a protection racket. Why not have drivers insure themselves? Doesn't that work somehow? What was the insurance issue in this Lyft example? Did the passenger pay more or less?
Protectionist laws aren't automatically good because they have some questionably-beneficial aspect. And in this case, they aren't protecting anybody involved, just the city. Are you kidding?