Taxi owners clearly have the ear of a few City Council members, even helping them craft a bill that would force ride-hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft to play by the same rules. But the Council will have to think in broader terms as it weighs the measure, which would stifle progress and overregulate in the name of consumer protection.

Rather than resist change and try to kick the new kid out of the sandbox, taxicab companies would fare better by adapting to a changing marketplace — one that requires upgrades to reach tech-savvy riders. And Council members must err on the side of “less is more” when it comes to the proposed regulations, which industry experts have described as among the most aggressive taken by a city so far.

Bill 85, introduced by City Council Chairman Ernie Martin and Councilwoman Ann Kobayashi, is being touted as a “consumer protection” measure, and Kobayashi says taxi drivers have been asking for a level playing field. But instead of striking a balance, the bill’s aim appears more focused on eliminating the competition.

For instance, Bill 85 would ban drivers from using a GPS device to measure distance and calculate fares, which is the bread and butter of Uber and Lyft. The bill also would require Uber and Lyft vehicles to be equipped with a taximeter, rooftop sign or dome light, and fares would have to be posted.

We cannot discount the need for basic regulations that both taxicab and ride-hailing companies should adhere to — specifically background checks on drivers and reasonable vehicle safety standards. And as the industry evolves, the necessary regulation will evolve as well. But the bill’s attempt to classify Uber and Lyft as taxicab companies simply goes too far. It’s as though taxicab companies are trying their best not to innovate.

Uber and Lyft rely on a peer-to-peer model using apps that allow consumers to choose a driver’s proposed fare ahead of time and make payment virtually. Under the self-regulating framework, drivers are able to share how riders treat drivers and vice versa.

Representatives for Uber and Lyft say they are studying Bill 85 and noted they’ve seen bills crop up in other markets. Yet this particular set of regulations is unique — in an overbearing way. Harry Campbell, who operates therideshareguy.com blog and monitors national trends, says he has never seen a city try to put ride-hailing under the same rules as the taxi industry.

Taxi owners contend ride-hailing businesses have substantially cut into their business. And while some reject the technological advancements that Uber and Lyft employ, many have latched on to one ride-hailing feature included in the bill — “surge” pricing. The regulations would allow cab drivers to charge new fees, and taxi rates could double at night, for special events and on holidays. Those changes would be similar to Uber’s pricing structure.

Mayor Kirk Caldwell’s administration appears to be more open to hearing from all sides, including consumers, which is encouraging. City Transportation Services Director Michael Formby said, “We want to guide the conversation in favor of less regulation versus more regulation.”

The City Council should move toward a set of minimal regulations that protect the safety of taxicab and ride-hailing passengers, but in a way that allows consumers to shape the industry’s future.