Technology brings wonderful new options, but along with them, there’s this: It forces churn into business, disruption that does not settle down very comfortably or quickly.

That’s what has happened in the clash between ridehailing services, such as Uber and Lyft, and Honolulu’s long-established taxicab companies. An outcry from the latter about what they see as unfair competitive conditions, and some understandable concern about consumer costs, spurred the passage of legislation by the Honolulu City Council.

Bill 35, which authorizes the establishment of a cap on how much ridehailing charges could “surge” during heavy commuter times, was passed 6-3. But this attempt to overregulate what is a self-regulating marketplace with pricing that’s transparent to customers is wrongheaded and will not ultimately serve the public.

Ridehailing customers can decide whether or not to accept the ride, knowing the price up front, and can decide whether delaying their trip to an off-peak time, or finding another option, would suit them best.

It would be the nation’s first such ban, but being first is a dubious honor when the action itself is a misstep. Mayor Kirk Caldwell should put a swift end to the bill by issuing a veto. Council members who may be wavering should not vote to override a veto.

A persuasive case can be made on the basis of what’s best for the city, whatever plans the ridehailing companies make about their future in Honolulu. Enactment of this price-control measure would compound the state’s existing reputation as an unfriendly home base for business.

Additionally, discouraging transportation options is anything but a good plan for a visitor destination. Ridehailing companies are established now, their technology accepted and embraced, and it’s all but impossible to get this genie back into the bottle.

If it’s not Uber or Lyft, it will be a service very like them. Making reasonable accommodations would be the rational position for policymakers.

Operationally, Bill 35 may prove much harder to implement fairly than the Council anticipated. It is intended to level the playing field for ridesharing drivers and cabbies, by mandating that the city Department of Transportation Services director establish maximum fares and rates on the taxi meters, prohibiting any surge prices that exceed these ceilings.

The difficulty is that the two transportation platforms are not really comparable. Taxis offer customers the surety that a driver will be dispatched to their specific location. Their customers like being able to make arrangements in advance. The actual fare can be estimated but it hinges on variables such as traffic congestion levels.

Ridehailing drivers make themselves available at times and places of their choosing, and can respond to a hail, or let it pass. This usually isn’t a problem in routinely traveled corridors such as the Waikiki-airport route. But availability can be limited if the ride originates somewhat off the beaten track.

The advantage they offer is greater certainty of the cost, up front, which many riders like. There is also the convenience of not having to settle up accounts; the automatic bill-payment sequence is handled through the app, prearranged at the initial setup.

An equitable fare and rate structure, with surge-pricing caps, would be elusive in the hands of city regulators. This is a case in which the dynamics of the marketplace itself, with pricing that is transparent to drivers and customers alike, is better equipped to mediate the fares.

Further, the peak-hour pricing is what brings more drivers into the marketplace, and that added income-producing option is a plus for them, as well.

Cab companies know when the surging happens, as does everyone else, so they could market themselves as offering a better fare at those times. They already have responded to the customer appreciation for flat fares, and that responsiveness is a good thing, a benefit of the competitive marketplace.

Two years ago, the city established rules about safety assurances, such as background checks of drivers, that must be applied to all. That was a worthwhile improvement; ensuring public safety falls within the government regulatory wheelhouse.

Regulating prices is more problematic. It is the riders themselves who are in a better position to judge the fairness of the pricing, and competitors should work to make sure they are represented in the marketplace as well.

In the many decades that taxis have operated on Oahu, the city sought to control charges because the final costs were opaque to the public. Technology has allowed for better cost-estimations and awareness of costs before a ride is purchased. It’s high time that the regulatory system, which may now be excessively controlling of conventional taxis, be re-evaluated.

That would be a solution when innovation produces more choices, rather than legislating how the commodity of transportation is bought and sold.