Uber have taught regulators that, if you're friendly to Uber and give them time to stop breaking the rules, they'll tool up for a fight with you instead of spending the time getting their house in order.
That may be a good approach in cities where the taxis are all run by the mob or something and the regulators are all corrupt - but there's no denying they're lying in the bed they chose to make.
In the US, Uber's aggression was pretty clearly the only way to ever launch - they had to (1) break the rules, (1) delay in court, and (3) grow like crazy, so that by the time their law-breaking is proven, they're too popular to outlaw.
Now, their incentives are different because they're the incumbent. They WANT to work under heavy regulation (just like the taxis did!). So, if the same is true in the UK, I wonder if it still makes sense to layer it on, knowing that eventually the other players will have to overcome the same barriers.
Well good, I hope they'll be appreciating my no vote on 22.
The difference here though is that London is setting itself up to a situation where it can't deregulate without losing face, can't play favorites anymore (because regulations are "supposed to be fair") but the regulations are so demanding that it makes it significantly more difficult for competition to enter the market, ultimately strengthening Uber's position.
The claim was that the coffee itself was too hot, hotter than served at other establishments. Hot enough to give her huge third-degree burns across both her legs which required skin grafts and two years of further medical treatment. I've seen the photos—they're horrific.
Nope.