[spartango]

Thank you for reading and citing the law in detail. For those who haven't read it[1], I'd encourage you to do so. Unfortunately, the author of the blog post is reading it rather selectively and linking to another report.

Reading through the law, it seems largely sensible. The council lays out its logic for which pieces of the operations of a service like Uber need to be regulated, and specifies appropriate regulatory action on each item. We're talking about aspects like "transparency of rates", "certificates of safety" from mechanics, allowances for handicapped people, and insurance.

In fact, the council lays out a pilot program to assess whether such regulatory action is actually effective, "so that regulation provides a safety net that the public can rely on for its protection while new businesses innovate and use technology to better the lives of Washingtonians." The balance between "innovative" interests and those of consumers is clearly being weighed, and the council will assess "any negative unintended consequences of the pilot program" by next year.

Attacking the caps ignores the fact that they are associated primarily with the pilot program and initial regulation. You can think of it as a form of risk management for a trial, not dissimilar from that exercised in a medical drug trial.

[1] http://clerk.seattle.gov/~scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s3=118036&...