Consumers have a choice not to use their services. If they are so bad, no one is making you use them. The rules supposedly exist to benefit consumers. But if that was the case, consumers wouldn't knowingly use services that don't comply to them.
You have a choice on whether to rent out your apartment on AirBnB. You balance the money you can make from doing so against the risk created by randos walking through your building. Your neighbor, on the other hand, bears additional risk if you decide to rent on AirBnB,[1] but does not benefit in any way from the transaction. This is a textbook example of an inefficient negative externality.
[1] It also substantially reduces her property value, as people hate buying property in buildings with lots of transients. Condo prices in a building with apartment units can be substantially lower than in a building without them, purely because people put a lot of value on not having renters in their building.
When an insured cab crashes insurance companies are there to help people potentially rebuild their lives.
When an uninsured cab crashes without insurance and there's no insurance... Well then you're out of luck. And lets not forget that it's not only the customer of the taxi that can get hurt in a car crash.
I wouldn't be surprised if many taxi fees and regulations went to help the roads that those taxis proceed to drive on (in many places). Uber cars aren't contributing to that and the steadfast refusal to do so at the behest of municipalities hurts everyones system as a whole.
It's not just about whether the consumers will choose to use this or that. It's about a system that works for everyone. Of course you can overdo regulation, and disruptors are a necessary forward for change but just because of libertarian principles which have never worked as espoused anywhere doesn't mean that these people shouldn't be subject to certain regulations and shouldn't thumb their noses when asked to comply.
Now most of this is just what I think. I don't have examples where a municipality requires its taxis to pay for the roads through fees, but hopefully the point has been made clearly.
I thought gas taxes were the established way of paying for roads anyways. And all drivers should be required to have insurance to begin with - the fact someone else is in the car has nothing to do with it.
I have no choice if my neighbors choose to use AirBnB, but I do have to deal with the consequences.
If you want to protect yourself from AirBnB, there are ways to do it.
Nuisance law and other private means of address simply aren't available when you're dealing with a constant stream of strangers.