Uber loses licence to operate in London, will still operate while appealing

From what I hear.... London !

Says who? Just because you say it, doesn't make it true. Private transporting has been with humanity since ancient times. It's not going away and it's sustainable.

> and it is not something that has to be affordable for everyone, even less by lowering workers wages or playing with the tariffs by demand.

It's nice that you aren't price conscious when taking 'private transport'. And you're right, uber opened up the market to people that could not afford (or could not justify) taking a taxi before. You see that as a detriment, because you have money but others may disagree. That was certainly me in Uni when I walked home in the middle of night, through sketchy neighbourhoods, because my city's public transport ended at 2am, and I wasn't about to pay $40-$60 for a cab ride (assuming it showed up at all).

I actually started using Uber when during a trip to Chicago I got shafted by several taxi companies who simply wouldn't pick me up from (I guess) the neighbourhood I was in .. in the middle of November. That was the reality of taxis pre-uber. Everybody hated them. They were openly discriminating by geogrpahy and ethnicity. They were expensive. They were also unreliable. And you had no options.

>Taxi regulations gives us passengers safety and fair prices.

Tax regulations, especially in cities like New York, protected taxi cab companies (and the private equity firms that owned the medallions) and created a medalion bubble which made running an independent taxi almost impossible and benefited only the medallion owners.

It's also a false choice. Muncipalities can (and do) certainly set safety standards on Uber and Lyft.

And by the way, many of the regulations that Taxis operate under came as a result of taxis scamming and cheating people (especially tourists and forgeiners) out of money. And it still happens if you travel abroad ... speaking of which, when I'm abroad and Uber is available, it really does remove the language barrier and is immensely helpful in navigating a non-english speaking city.

>We have to promote governments that support affordable and good quality public transport,

'Private transport' is public transport. It is part of the mix of public transportation. Every option you provide that disincentives car ownership is a benefit.

I simply do not trust the company.

I accept that the market pressure uber has brought has improved transportation. I do not accept that uber and its repeated atrocious behaviors required for this.

Its a shame that uber can so easily bypass tfl with appeals and minor changes.

* Deregulate halfway, by promising that things will be better in the free market

* Wait for trust erosion in the public institutions and regulations

* Remove remaining regulations, because obviously, regulation is not working, and the "free" market will take care of things

* Create an effective monopoly because it is not economic to maintain two or more infrastructures in parallel. After that, raise prices.

If only we really had people lobbying for a truly free market. I.e. a market where rules are imposed and maintained. Where umpires make sure everyone is playing fairly. Where businesses can compete and where customers have a choice.

You know if you are a butcher, you should be pretty pleased with a central inspector touring your shop's front and back, making sure that hygiene is well-maintained. What needs to be made sure though is, that EVERY business competing with you is held to the same standards.

So for uber, I'd be super happy if they'd pay their drivers an agreed standard/union wage (or more) and compensated maintenance costs for their private vehicles they are using for the profit of the company accordingly. It's not much to ask really.