RogerB “Segregating cars from pedestrians” … I know, we could have a place reserved for access to a car. Part of the benefit for signing this contract, the lawyers explained, was that operators were granted access to UBV’s app. With regard to driverless cars, I think Uber (and everyone else) has rather missed an important point. I would suggest that a fair test route would be a journey from Finchley Central to Edgware via Mill Hill Broadway incorporating a double mini-roundabout and at least one emergency roadworks with stop/go boards.

London, like other territories, has a limited pool of licensed drivers and that means Uber have to make driving for them much more attractive than any alternative. Even in its cities roads are often designed to give priority to car use, sometimes to a point of active hostility to other forms of transport (such as cycling or buses). The need to be ‘just an app’ means that for Uber the driver cost isn’t simply that of the person behind the wheel. What are the differences between London and other UK cities regarding taxi licences that led to the dispute with Uber only occurring in London? Uber claim that they are effectively an umbrella organisation for 30,000 mini-cab drivers who are, in effect their own company.This might be perfectly acceptable to many but many others will find it frustrating especially those in a hurry.

Over the subsequent pages of their ruling they gently, but firmly, tore a gaping hole in Uber’s legal definition of itself. It was simply a brand umbrella under which 30,000 independently licensed minicab firms chose to operate.Bear in mind TFL is both regulator and operator/funder of services hit by competition (eg night buses).