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

I'm always amazed at how fatalist about this sort of thing Londoners are. Like losing Uber will be a massive problem for a huge portion of the population. London has, by FAR, the best, cheapest and most efficient public transport in the entire UK. Uber is, yeah, cheaper than a black cab but also why is it cheaper? Worse working conditions, VC-subsidised, lower standards for vetting (as we've seen here!) It's not sustainable, and while there's obviously a market need for a cheaper app-based minicab service in London, Uber has proven repeatedly that it can't be trusted to do that.

I don't know what I'm missing, but why not let customers decide if they want to use a lower standards for vetting service, and let drivers decide if they want worse working conditions. Note that I don't completely agree with your statements, but assuming they're true, my question still stands.

Because the UK - like most of Europe - believes the free market is a poor mechanism to protect vulnerable people from rape and physical assault.

I'm not being flippant here: customers have routinely shown that for lower prices they'll suffer almost anything, to the point that safer alternatives become uncompetitive.

TfL isn't asking for much here: just that drivers are vetted properly and consistently. Every other firm in London is asked to do it, and complies. If Uber can put them all out of business by saving money on not doing that, the market will make the industry less safe for passengers.

We have voted in people to ensure that doesn't happen, because we want protection from the free market, simple as.