Did it happen in Austin? According to this article, they were allowed back in a year later and no longer were asked to perform fingerprint based background checks.

> Did it happen in Austin?

NYC still requires fingerprint checks.

In Austin, the mayor and people voted in favor of the checks, but the state legislature killed the city's fingerprinting rule. Some argue this diminished the city's ability to self-govern. That part of the history, despite being quite short, is left out of this article.

> Frankly, it happened in Austin. Lyft and Uber threw a hissy fit and the market was happy to fill in the gaps.

Good luck with that, the markets are not remotely comparable:

Austin: 900k pop; In a red state known for low regulatory burden; No established mass transit to compete with; No established tax companies

London: 8.8M pop; High regulatory burden; City's incentive: each Uber rider is a potential lost customer for the Underground; Taxi companies have influence with legislators

The only incentive TFL has is to make travel as efficient as possible.

The underground is way too crowded, but so are the roads (mainly because of taxis these days).

This makes Uber a better bet than taxis (more efficient) buses better than both, bikes best of all and something in between a nirvana.

However, none of that matters as long as Uber think they're above the law.

> The only incentive TFL has is to make travel as efficient as possible.

TfL has the incentive to follow London mayoral policy; the MoL has concerns beyond travel.