The purpose of law should be to benefit the public. Uber and Lyft empirically demonstrate, in most cities, that taxi regulations--a textbook example of regulatory capture for decades--do not benefit the public when they protect taxis against competition.
Some people have an authoritarian worldview--laws are handed down to us by our betters, and we'd better follow them no matter what. I prefer a democratic worldview--laws are an artifact created by the people for the benefit of the people, and once they hinder that purpose rather than promote it, there's nothing sacred about continuing to follow it to our own detriment.
In many cities acrozs the world there is both comprtition and consumer-oriented regulation. London is like this. Uber's business model isn't even novel there.
Some people have an authoritarian worldview--laws are handed down to us by our betters, and we'd better follow them no matter what. I prefer a democratic worldview--laws are an artifact created by the people for the benefit of the people, and once they hinder that purpose rather than promote it, there's nothing sacred about continuing to follow it to our own detriment.