Councilmember Mike O’Brien speaks at Monday’s Seattle City Council meeting.

After nearly one year of deliberation, the Seattle City Council voted 9-0 Monday afternoon to enforce new legislation that will regulate app-based transportation companies like UberX, Lyft and Sidecar.

These companies will be allowed 150 cars on the road at any given time. That means Lyft can have 150 drivers at one time during the day or night — same goes for Sidecar and UberX, or any other similar “transportation network company” (TNC) that decides to set up shop in Seattle. If Lyft had 151 drivers on the streets, for example, it would be illegal.

The companies haven’t revealed how many active drivers they have on average, but there are about 3,000 total drivers between the three of them.

[Follow-up: Breakdown: What the key players are saying about Seattle’s ride-sharing cap]

At a subcommittee meeting on Feb. 27, the Council voted 5-4 to approve the regulations. Today the ordinance was officially approved and will take effect 30 days after Mayor Ed Murray signs it (Murray cannot veto this because there were at least six votes for approval).

“We can’t dodge this problem any longer,” said Sally Clark, who chaired the Committee on Taxi, For-Hire and Limousine Regulations. “What we decide today isn’t a complete fix, but it is a start.”

There were also several amendments approved, the most important of which forces the TNCs to abide by the state’s requirements for commercial insurance. There was another amendment that prevents TNCs from creating spinoff companies — Uber cannot create an UberY, UberZ, for example.

uberxThe only amendment that did not pass was the one proposed on Monday by Councilmember Tom Rasmussen that would eliminate any sort of caps.

“Let’s listen to what the public is saying,” he said. “Let’s not cut supply when demand is so high.”

Two others — Sally Bagshaw and Tim Burgess — voted in favor of Rasmussen’s amendment.

“Someone told me that trying to limit TNCs would be like prohibiting Netflix because we wanted to protect Blockbuster,” Burgess noted.

But the six other councilmembers voted that idea down. Bruce Harrell, who voted last month in favor of the 150-cap, said that the city’s vision in the coming years is to remove caps and let consumer choice “dictate what’s out there.” But for now, the approved legislation lets TNCs operate legally in Seattle with oversight.

“The headline should not read that the City Council capped anything,” Harrell said. “It should read that it allowed the ride-shares to come into the industry.”

After the meeting last month, neither TNCs or those from the taxi industry seemed happy with the city’s decision, which was ultimately approved today.

We just live-blogged the discussion, which you can read here. We’ll have reaction from both sides up on GeekWire shortly, so stay tuned for more coverage.

Related coverage:

Like what you're reading? Subscribe to GeekWire's free newsletters to catch every headline


  • Ed O

    It’s so gracious of the city council to allow a thriving business that so many of us use all of the time to come into the city of Seattle.

  • frustrated

    over 27000 people signed the petition against putting caps on UberX. why isn’t the city council listening to us?!

    • ClaimsAdjuster

      LOL. Online petition?

      • Dude Manly

        Ignore this troll, it is a representative of the taxi industry.

  • Booooo

    And Seattle wonders why tech companies and the city do not get the love they deserve…

  • So Long Seattle

    FUCK YOU Seattle City Counsel.

    • ClaimsAdjuster

      Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

  • Lb Dutchess

    Seattle thinks it can tell me as a PAYING CLIENT what service i can use
    to come in and out of the city they are sadly mistaken. I will chose
    to spend most of my money, time and energy here on the eastside where it
    is not restricted. I really Hope alot of others do the same if they
    can. it seems the only thing these council members understand is when
    you take dollars away from them.

    • Dude Manly

      Unfortunately, they do not care about that either. They have proven that all they care about is taking bribes. Seattle City Council is outrageously corrupt and it’s time to kick them all out in the next election. I will be donating $10k to each opponent of the current Council members in the next election.

      • ClaimsAdjuster

        You are pulling your accusation about bribes out of your butt.

        • Dude Manly

          You are openly lying about WA state insurance laws, how insurance works, requirements on Taxi operators (please show me the ordinances that you mention in your other post), etc. Everything that comes out of you is either a lie, or an insult attacking a poster on here. it is clear that you are here to promote the interests of the taxi industry, and you are fooling nobody.

          • ClaimsAdjuster

            Name one lie. As for ordinances, you can start with the state RCW 46.72 which defines a For Hire vehicle: “The term “for hire vehicle” includes all vehicles used for the transportation of passengers for compensation,” – you know, like UberX/Lyft/Sidecar.”

          • Dude Manly

            Wow. Never realized that law specified insurance requirements for taxis. You keep proving me wrong, over and over. Oh wait……

          • ClaimsAdjuster

            You must have missed the part that said “all vehicles used for the transportation of passengers for compensation”. Must be selective blindness.

  • Unjust

    Demand for these services are more than prevalent. This new legislation potentially increases drunk driving, which makes it more dangerous for tax payers and citizens of the City of Seattle. I guess those DUI ticket prices are worth funding the city, huh, Seattle City Council?!

    • stands to reason

      This may have been a deliberate attempt to keep that DUI violation revenue flowing into city coffers

    • ClaimsAdjuster

      On New Year’s eve, three young ladies called Uber to take them from downtown Seattle to Shoreline. Uber’s surge priciong was in effect then so they were quoted $125. A For Hire vehicle took them home for $50. Apparently Uber’s anti-DUI project was just limited to rich drunks that night.

      • Dude Manly

        ClaimsAdjuster works for a Taxi company, in case that wasn’t already obvious enough.

        • ClaimsAdjuster

          Dude is an Uber troll who says that he is going to donate $10,000 to pro-Uber candidates in the next election. Because Jeff Bezos and Goldman Sachs do not have enough money on their own to corrupt our political system.

  • Shane Mac

    Dear Seattle,

    Problem with 150 cap on Uber, Lyft and Sidecar is that as these companies become more successful, they won’t work.

    More demand, same supply, we all lose.

    I say Uber, Lyft and Sidecar team up and all leave Seattle and let consumers go crazy, force change together.

  • Ridiculous

    Look at the politics. Unanimous vote so the cherry picked Mayor can’t veto and not have to face the public’s ire. How’s that for leadership. These are the people we put in office, Seattle, thank no one but ourselves. Ashamed to be a Seattleite today.

  • Smash

    Taxi Lobby: 9, People of Seattle: 0.

  • omaryak

    “The headline should not read that the City Council capped anything” … no, no I suppose you wouldn’t want the press to cover what you did with any degree of honesty. If it sounds that bad it actually is.

  • Bart C

    As much as I love Uber, Lyft, etc. I think they’ve been pretty arrogant
    in these conversations with the city. They don’t want any rules at all
    and hoped the city would bend under the premise of ‘innovation’ and the
    pressure of the public opinion. The reality is that they refused to
    release any data (how much drivers are active at a given time, how many
    subscribers requests there are,…) and therefor the city didn’t have
    anything to work with. Car2Go had similar – and successful –
    negotiations with the city in the past and came prepared with concrete
    numbers (# of subscribers vs # of cars needed on the road). I hate to
    see Uber and Lyft’s service being limited, I’m personally affected by
    it, but this failure is the result of their inability to negotiate based
    on facts, rather than emotions.

    • Luis Antezana (luckylou)

      I’m conflicted, too. The TNCs have an innovative cool model we all seem to love, yet part of their success is because they can skirt the regulations that apply to their competition. We’re arguing for the so-called rebels here because they’re different/better but ultimately a big corporation is making all the money off TNCs anyway, which is fine since we benefit more from TNCs so hats off to them, but it’s not like it’s David vs Goliath, it’s like new smart Goliath vs old dumb Goliath, where old has to play by rules and new doesn’t.

      For the record – I’m against the caps. Quote of the article: “…trying to limit TNCs would be like prohibiting Netflix because we wanted to protect Blockbuster…”

      • Bart C

        Don’t get me wrong, I’m against the caps as well. But it’s up to Uber and Lyft to negotiate more realistic caps based on real numbers, not on emotions. I really don’t understand why they don’t want to release hard factual data. It would have created a more objective discussion.

        • Nathan

          Why should there be caps in the first place? It is an arbitrary and counter-productive requirement. Ensuring that the drivers are licensed with the proper insurance, now that makes sense.

          • Bart C

            And why should Uber, Lyft,… hide their numbers in the first place?

          • moomistercowman

            Why would you want to limit yourself by giving them an actual number to cap you at? That would set a cap on growth. Secondly, they probably don’t want to influence the competition more by releasing numbers.

          • Bart C

            Because otherwise what happens is… exactly what happened. A limit that is based on nothing, because the city had nothing to base themselves on. Understand that the limit that Car2Go had has been raised after the initial limit to keep up with the growing # of users, backed by numbers. The city is not as unreasonable as many of you think. It’s Uber and Lyft that are not willing to negotiate based on facts, rather they prefer playing the public opinion. It’s a strategy that could have worked, but it clearly didn’t.

        • Luis Antezana (luckylou)

          Oh I got you, Bart! Great points. (Kramer rapid head nod)

  • outraged citizen

    None of these councilmembers will get my vote next election. Nor will the mayor, who’s stayed in the wishy-washy middle on this one, and now will be freed by prior arrangement from having to make a stand at all.

  • les_madras

    I think every pedestrian that was killed by a Lyft, Uber or other TNC vehicle would be thankful in their grave for this decision. More vehicles for hire are great, as long as they are regulated to protect public safety.

    • taxidriversrindenturedservants

      Yeah, when I search Seattle Taxi Deaths it’s so comforting, much like searching for Seattle Taxi rape.

    • Nate

      are you for real?

    • marcus0263

      Are you seriously this ignorant?

      • ClaimsAdjuster

        It this where you pretend that the invalid non-commercial insurance isn’t a problem ? Uber is not stepping up to the plate in the Sofia Liu case.

        • marcus0263

          Lyft has a $1 Million bond, 3x that of yellow cab. Lyft also requires an extensive background check which you know the cab companies don’t. This vote by the council just goes to show they are in the pockets of the cab companies

          • ClaimsAdjuster

            Most UberX/Lyft cars are still covered by invalid non-commercial insurance. It is a schem,e based on insurance fraud.

        • marcus0263

          Oh and about Sofia Liu case, been in cabs many a time and they’re chatting on their cell phones. The lawsuit is frivolous at best.

          • ClaimsAdjuster

            So? A cab driver who is chatting on a cell phone while driver could be charged under distracted driving laws. Such negligence could result in civil liability for the taxi’s policyholder and possibly for the cab’s dispatch service.

          • marcus0263

            And like I stated, Lyft has a $1 Million bond where Yellow Cab only has $300k. Thus your comment about Insurance is invalid.

          • ClaimsAdjuster

            Really? Then why is it that UberX/Lyft drivers hide their taxi business from their insurance company?


          • marcus0263

            That is with personal insurance, Lyft has a $1 million coverage while they are working

            Our first-of-its-kind insurance solution provides our drivers with
            additional coverages, giving both drivers and passengers ultimate peace
            of mind. Our coverages include:

            Excess Liability: $1,000,000 limit covering passengers and/or third parties

            Contingent Collision: $2,500 deductible and $50,000 maximum
            applicable to drivers who have purchased collision coverage on their
            personal policy

            Excess Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM): $1,000,000 limit
            covering drivers if they are hit by an uninsured or underinsured
            motorist who’s at fault

          • marcus0263

            Here’s the notice of the insurance

            And again, your shrill on Insurance is invalid

          • ClaimsAdjuster

            Yes, Uber just announced that new policy last Friday, the weekend before the Seattle City Council vote. Coincidence?

            However, most of the TNC drivers are still insured with invalid non-commercial policies. They continue to hide their taxi business from their insurer because they know any claims that they file will be denied or their policies cancelled. It is still a scheme based on insurance fraud.

          • marcus0263

            So says you

          • ClaimsAdjuster

            So says the insurance industry, uber troll.


            “Both companies now plan to cover drivers as soon as they make themselves available to work. But drivers’ personal policies remain the primary insurer.

            “This sounds like a step in the right direction (but) by continuing to have their insurance apply on an excess basis, they are still trying to pass the cost of doing business to drivers’ personal policies,” said Kara Cross, general counsel for the Personal Insurance Federation of California. “These are commercial activities, and they’ve acknowledged this, so why are they still trying to shift their business expenses?”

            Bob Passmore, senior director for trade group ACIC/PCIA, which represents hundreds of insurers, said he thinks personal policies will deny coverage to drivers who use the cars for commercial purposes.

            “Every personal auto policy I’ve ever seen in 29 years in the industry has a livery exclusion,” he said. “They exclude coverage for when you’re making yourself available to carry persons or property for hire.”

          • marcus0263

            Well then sue them for false advertising then or go to the Attorney General and see how far that gets you.

          • ClaimsAdjuster

            The insurance industry thus far has just limited itself to arguing against this bogus insurance scheme in testimony before state legislatures and city councils. And of course cancelling policies. But if nothing is done about it, they will just raise rates on the personal insurance auto market to cover the extra liabilities.

        • Dude Manly

          Nice cherry-picking. One single case in San Francisco of an off-duty Uber driver means we condemn all rideshare drivers and services. I wonder what the results would be if we were to search for all traffic deaths involving all taxi drivers in Seattle and San Francisco? Do you think we would find more than 1 example? I sure do.

          • ClaimsAdjuster

            Lame attempt to change the subject. The point is not whether taxis or TNCs have accidents – of couse they do. It comes with the territory. That is why taxis are required to have commercial insurance so that your inane weaseling that the driver was “off-duty” is irrelevant.

          • Dude Manly

            No need to insult me. I looked at your comment history and you clearly have a strong bias on this issue, and have been attacking other posters as well. Makes me wonder why you have such a strong interest. As to “commercial” insurance, Lyft and UberX both carry significantly higher coverage than any of the Seattle cab companies, so your argument is moot. In a personal injury case, the plaintiff doesn’t care what type of insurance is carried, the only important fact is the coverage limits. Taxi cabs, by your own logic, are less responsible because they carry lower coverage and have lower limits. Yet, Seattle City Council will allow more of them on the road. How does that make sense, by your own logic? Please do explain. I’m all ears.

          • ClaimsAdjuster

            The hypothetical upper limits are irrelevant if they have a way to sleaze out such as your “off-duty” weasel. The driver who ran over Sofia Liu was logged into UberX’s system, his icon showed him as availalble on the customer’s app. That is what Uber is selling and what they require their drivers to do. He was working.

          • Dude Manly

            Yet again, you are lying. The UberX driver that hit that child was off-duty, and that has already been established. The family of the child contacted UberX and demanded millions of dollars. They’ll have their day in court. If the driver was actually driving for UberX, his insurance would be handling the lawsuit and there is ZERO purpose in suing UberX. If you knew anything at all about insurance and personal injury law, you would already know this – but you are attempting to mislead and lie to people who don’t know better. Also, for someone who claims to work for an insurance provider, you have a rather shocking lack of knowledge about how insurance laws actually work. For the record, I’m a personal injury attorney and make my living working with insurance claims every day. Everything you have said about insurance law in WA state is completely false and makes it totally obvious that you are here as a representative of the taxi company, lying about who you are, lying about everything you say, attacking posters for no reason, and simply being a taxi company troll. Go away now, liar.

          • ClaimsAdjuster

            Dude: “The UberX driver that hit that child was off-duty, and that has already been established.”

            Untrue. Uber is not even claiming that the driver was “off-duty”. It stated that the accident “did not involve a vehicle or provider doing a trip on the Uber system.”

            You should check with the home office next time to find out what the company line is next time, Uber troll.

            From The Verge

            “On New Year’s Eve, 2013, a cab driver named Syed Muzzafar struck a mother and her two children in the crosswalk of San Francisco’s Tenderloin district, killing the six-year-old Sofia Liu. The tragic event immediately took on controversial overtones when Muzzafar told police at the scene he was working for Uber, the transportation startup.

            Uber initially released a statement saying the crash “did not involve a vehicle or provider doing a trip on the Uber system.” Later it updated that statement to clarify that “the driver in question was a partner of Uber … the driver was not providing services on the Uber system during the time of the accident.”

            It’s fuzzy language, but it boils down to this: Uber wants to operate in the real world with the relative freedom and impunity most online startups enjoy — but without the regulations placed on most taxi services. Uber has said on many occasions that it’s a technology company, not a transportation provider. It wants to be neutral, much as YouTube doesn’t bear responsibility for its users’ videos and Craigslist doesn’t verify items for sale. Uber’s position is that it’s not responsible for anything a driver does before a ride is booked and after a fare is paid. “We’re in the middle, we are the marketplace,”says Uber founder and CEO Travis Kalanick.”

          • ClaimsAdjuster

            You clearly have a bias and have been attacking me. Makes me wonder why you have such a strong interest.

          • marcus0263

            ClaimsAdjuster, are you a Sock Puppet for the Cab Company’s?

          • marcus0263

            Yep, ClaimsAdjuster seems to be a sock puppet for either Cab Company’s or the City Council
            Big reason why I use Lyft is the quality of drivers and their driving. I say let’s investigate the driving records of the Cab Company’s. Lyft’s background check for fed, state and local that includes their DMV records. Let’s compare that with Yellow Cab shall we?

          • ClaimsAdjuster

            The insurance company has the final word on the MVRs. A cab driver can’t have more than one at fault accident. The County fingerprints drivers and checks their criminal history. More extensive than anything Lyft may or may not do.

          • Dude Manly

            This is false. “ClaimsAdjuster” continues to spread flat-out lies. My next-door neighbor is a Yellow Cab driver (an Eritrean dude), and he has had multiple DUIs. He has had 2 DUIs in our neighborhood in the last year. Both of them were in a cab. So either ClaimsAdjuster is just flat-out lying, or the taxi industry in Seattle is doing something shady to side-step insurance requirements – which again nullifies everything this taxi troll has to say.

          • ClaimsAdjuster

            If your story is true, the DUIs are still being contested and have not shown up yet on the MVR . It should be obvious that an insurance company is not going to cover a driver with DUIs. Your accusation that the “taxi industry in Seattle is doing something shady to side-step insurance requirements” is yet another charge that you pulled out of your butt.

  • Joe Technocrat

    Outstanding! This is great news.
    Not for UberX customers, of course. Not even for taxi drivers. For me this is great news.
    Every city councilman who supported these caps will be out of a job after his or her next election. Six new men, technocrats all, will take their place. We will run on a commonsensical platform of innovation and enrichment, and we will win election.
    Today is not the end of UberX. It is the beginning of Seattle’s technocratic future. Thank you, City Council, for showing yourself the exit.
    (And to my friend Karen, who hates UberX and loves her pretend job as a claims adjuster: I’ll respond to your reply on Saturday. I’m watching “Cosmos” tonight.)

    • ClaimsAdjuster

      Actually you are not going to be able to devote yourself to Uber trolling as you have in the past. Now that this bill has passed, you have only 30 days to legalize your under-the-table business.

      These are the things that you have to get done:

      1) State business and vehicle For Hire license.
      2) L&I account to protect you in the event of an on the job injury.
      3) Seattle Business License
      4) Driver For Hire license with a TNC endorsement.
      5) Decals to identify your ride as a TNC. No more putting the mustache in the trunk after an accident.
      6) Proof of insurance for the city
      7) Letter from your TNC stating you are one of their drivers.
      8) Vehicle inspection

      The insurance situation is still kind of up in the air so I would recommend a commercial policy for $4K. You will be able to get your state For Hire permit with that and you won’t get blacklisted from personal policies if you have an accident. If you have a newer ride you should probably get colllision/comprehensive for an additional $1K.. Let me know if you would like me to set you up.

      • Dude Manly

        Why would anyone do business with someone who insults and attacks people on the internet? You just called this person a troll, and now you’re trying to sell them insurance? No insurance agent would do this. You clearly have a bias, have been attacking everyone on this site, and are clearly not associated with any insurance provider. Maybe I’m wrong, though. Which insurance provider do you sell/represent?

  • Not A Cab Driver

    This is simply because there are 3000 untaxed drivers driving in Seattle – see’s site for proof, no matter what the council says it’s adding fee’s times 3000+ drivers in head as lost revenue.

  • Drew Meyers


  • Adam Benzion

    Backwards Seattle. We vote for you to work for us, not against.

  • Shane Jones

    If the cap is per company, why don’t they just create separate operating businesses to increase their overall cap. UberSeattleA, UberSeattleB, … UberSeattleN. Was the city council smart enough to create rules that prevent subsidiaries or aggregation apps?

    • Taylor Soper

      They approved an amendment that prevents this from happening.

    • Dude Manly

      Yes, they actually specifically spelled out that companies can only DBA a single name. So awesome. I’m sick of the corruption.

  • greggottesman

    I think there are legitimate arguments on both sides. But a cap makes no sense for the majority that live and work in Seattle. If this City Council were in charge of the other Washington, it would have voted unanimously to cap email to save the U.S. Postal Service. A better answer would have been to figure out how to level the playing field for taxi companies, not level the competition to the detriment of most citizens.

  • Rick Roberts

    How can this imposition be legal?

  • jbaranski

    All I know is that the branches of government trend towards control and are scared of anything that’s outside of their control, so they’ll spin any tale to allow them that control.

  • Thomas L. Knapp

    These companies are not headquartered in Seattle. Their servers are not located in Seattle. The idea these politicians can tell these companies what they can show on their web sites — “drivers advertising as available,” etc. — is beyond stupid both as a practical matter and as a claim of legitimacy in power.

    • ClaimsAdjuster

      The whole notion that the TNCs can be trusted to say when their drop down insurance starts and ends is beyond stupid.

      • Dude Manly

        ClaimsAdjuster = Taxi Troll

        • ClaimsAdjuster

          Dude=Uber troll who says he is going to donate $10K to pro-Uber candidates. Very credible. And such a worthy cause!

  • Jojo

    The thing the article didn’t cover is WHY! Why the caps? Nice job writing…idiots.

  • JLM

    Seattle where the free market goes for hospice services?


  • Ryan

    This will literally cost lives.

  • Paul Birkeland

    Wow, typical Bruce Harrell! Hey, we totally screwed this company, but we are “letting them do business”.

    I think a general boycott of all Taxi companies needs to be organized. This is a good warning to businesses in general – if you plan to be successful and challenge the competition, stay out of Seattle!

    I agree that this will cost lives, the taxi capacity on Friday and Saturday nights is woefully inadequate.

    • Seriously?

      I’m all for organizing and not using cabs. Cabs could at least step it up to the standards of uber. Maybe the companies like lyft, uber can share an application network.

  • Seriously?

    “Thank you for calling Yellow cab address please”
    “Not sure its dark I’m in trouble just need to get home, I think I’m on Denny”
    “Sorry cant help you unless you have an address”
    “God I’m on a street somewhere near lower queen anne. It looks like maybe Denny and Dexter. I just left a party and Its pretty sketchy can you just sent a cab to Denny and Dexter.”
    “I need an address”
    “God(walking) Ok um 616 Battery next to Denny and Dexter. Listen my phone is dying and its very sketchy here”
    “Thank you a cab will be there in 5 to 30 minutes” Click

    yes much safer for women thank you Seattle city council, you suck

  • Dude Manly

    It’s time to VOTE AGAINST ALL CURRENT MEMBERS OF SEATTLE CITY COUNCIL in the next election. This City Council is corrupt beyond excuse. I used Lyft to avoid DUI driving, and now Seattle City Council takes that option away??? Why??? There is ZERO good reason to do that! Seattle City Council took the taxi companies’ money, who earned that buyoff money by exploiting immigrant drivers who barely earn enough to pay the $600/week lease for their cabs! Enough of this! I’m pledging $10,000 to candidates who run against all incumbents in the next election. Let’s vote these corrupt clowns out of office!!

    • ClaimsAdjuster

      Ha-ha. UberX/Lyft/Sidecar is funded by Jeff Bezos, Google, Goldman-Sachs, Andreeesen-Horowitz etc. And you are seriously pretending that the locally owned cab companies are the heavies?

      • Dude Manly

        Yes, I am. They just paid off Seattle City Council to pass a resolution that was heavily opposed by the citizens of Seattle. In a way that will force more DUI drivers on to the roads. And your reference to capital investors shows that you clearly have zero business knowledge or you just choose to knowingly try to mislead people through flawed logic. None of the investors you mentioned are running the ridesharing companies. Are you suggesting they are? Please do list which corporate operations of ridesharing companies are controlled by the investors you mentioned. I’m curious. This is your argument, please support it with some data. I’m waiting, taxi man……….

        • ClaimsAdjuster

          This is where you get to make groundless accusations that the City Council was paid off. What is your evidence of that? I am waiting Uber troll.

          • Dude Manly

            I’ve actually given your opinion enough respect to ask you honest questions, and your only response is to continue insulting me and others, and calling people names. Where I’m from, THAT is what constitutes a troll. So far, you have posted misinformation, called people names, thrown out insults on multiple articles, and contributed absolutely NOTHING to any serious conversation. You, sir, are the troll.

          • ClaimsAdjuster

            So the short answer is that you just pulled your accusation that the Seattle City Council was paid off out of your butt. I have not posted any misinformation. What back up have you provided? None.

        • ClaimsAdjuster

          Really, the BOD has no influence on management’s strategy for establishing their business in the US? Jeff Bezos wrote the book on regulatory arbitrage with Amazon’s sales tax avoidance. Uber’s talking points on how they should not have to play by the same rules as their competitors because they are so “innovative” is an echo of Amazon’s pleading for special treatment.

          • Dude Manly

            This post further proves that you are not worth debating anything with. You use constant misinformation and straight-out lies in a mistaken attempt to confuse, muddle and obfuscate. If you don’t know the difference between capital funding and a Board of Directors, then you have no business talking business at all. Your point was that the seed investments used to start UberX and Lyft make those companies more powerful than local established taxi companies. If you had even the first clue whatsoever about how businesses are run and operated, you would understand that operating capital and surplus are two different things completely, and that in the formative years of any company, ALL capital is earmarked for operations. Your attempt to logically obfuscate the separation of duties between investors and directors also shows that you have ZERO interest in honest debate. You are here to troll and muck-rack. And this is my last post to you. I’m done wasting time with a troll whose only goal is to interrupt and damage community dialogue.

          • ClaimsAdjuster

            The investors vote in the BOD, Uber troll. Big investors are guaranteed a seat.

    • ClaimsAdjuster

      Oh please, where would an Uber troll get $10K?

  • Will

    Self driving cars can come fast enough

  • BerthaNeedsMoney

    Just to comply, somebody at uber or lyft should create multiple clone apps with different names. UberX UberY and UberZ should all be seperate companies with 150 drivers on the road. There’s got to be a legal loophole in this city ordinance somewhere.

    • Taylor Soper

      They passed an amendment that prevents this type of thing.

  • bhopx

    I have yet to see an explanation from the council or anyone else on how this cap helps the general public. Probably because the only people this helps is the traditional taxi industry. Since when is it the roll of government to hamstring innovators in order to give the establishment time to adapt? That’s stunning that they would actually admit that that was their aim. . I feel sorry for the people of Seattle that they elected such of group of nannies to represent them.

  • md



    Worst decision EVER! There will be consequences to the city council’s vote on this. I REFUSE to ever take a TAXI!!! The consumer should have choices as we live in a market-based economy. If there’s more demand for Uber than regular taxi service then the consumer should be allowed to have this choice and not have scarcity or restriction. Seattle’s HYPERLIBERAL, HYPER PROUNION atmosphere really makes me want to vote Republican – just sayin’! NEVER punish the consumer or YOU will be out of business!!!!

  • Thiago

    Thanks for sharing this. This is actually the first I’ve heard of app-based transport. It sounds like a brilliant concept. Hopefully UberX can set a good standard for the future of this niche of the industry. Thiago |

Job Listings on GeekWork