The AA made a disappointing share market debut yesterday as its stock, spluttered, coughed and promptly went into reverse.

Investors who bought £1.385 billion worth of shares in the roadside recovery group were nursing immediate paper losses of £97 million as the shares ended the first day of conditional dealings at 232p, 7 per cent below the 250p purchase price.

However, demand for the shares was described by the company as “strong” and enabled the previous owner, the private equity-backed Acromas, to offload its entire holding in the company.

Acromas suffered a setback last month when it was unable to sell its shares in Saga, the over-50s insurer, because of weak institutional investor appetite for the initial public offering.

Bob Mackenzie, the former Green Flag chief and newly installed executive chairman of AA, put a brave face on events. “We’re more interested in what happens when unconditional trading begins on Thursday,” he said.

Advisers to the AA suggested that the falling price could be down to short-sellers betting that it would suffer the same fate as so many other recent flotations and drop to a discount

In an unusual two-step buy-in and float process, £930 million of AA shares were sold this month to a handful of cornerstone investors backing a new management team led by Mr Mackenzie, with the balance placed subsequently with other investors. Neil Woodford, the fund manager who recently left Invesco to set up his own business, emerged as a leading investor, buying 6.4 per cent of the company, and joining other cornerstone shareholders such as Aviva, Blackrock and L&G. The AA, which operates the BSM driving school and a motor insurance division as well as its 3,000-strong fleet of breakdown vehicles, raised £185 million by selling 85 million of newly issued shares.

The cash will be used to reduce some of the most expensive borrowings in its debt mountain, cutting it from £3.1 billion to £2.9 billion.

Cenkos, the sole co-ordinator, scooped up to £33.2 million in placing fees, £10 million of it paid in AA shares.

Organisers of a black cab protest against the Uber mini-cab app are planning further action even though a go-slow demonstration on Wednesday appeared to have backfired by generating publicity worth tens of millions of pounds for the rival service.

Steve McNamara, general secretary of the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, was due to meet Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, last night to discuss the dispute over the app which is undercutting traditional taxi operators.

The app surged from No 26 in the iTunes most popular chart on the eve of the protest to No 3 yesterday, surpassed only by Fifa’s World Cup app and Facebook’s Messenger service. The company claimed that it enjoyed an 850 per cent increase in business.

However, it refused to reveal how many passengers used its service or the number of drivers it had in London and Manchester.

Marketing executives claimed that the protest, which brought central London to a standstill, had been a spectacular miscalculation. Analysis of social media showed that many more people were opposed to the demonstration than supported it.

Ian Stephens, head of Saffron Brand Consultants, said: “I think it is a massive own goal. Uber have come across as the consumer champion, saying ‘We are just trying to do the best for the consumer’.”

He estimated that the exposure on television, radio and in newspapers was worth up to £100 million for the brand in terms of advertising. ”

Mr McNamara said they were aware of the risks of publicising Uber but “took the decision that there are a set number of people who use mini-cab apps in London and the vast majority of those would be aware of Uber”.

He said that the Mayor had joined those voicing concerns over Uber’s decision to channel all payments from the UK through the Netherlands. Critics claim that the company is seeking to avoid UK taxes and take advantage of lower tax rates in the Netherlands.

Mr McNamara said: “We will be having more protests. Quite a lot of cabbies enjoyed themselves yesterday.”

Jo Bertram, general manager for Uber London, declined to say how many new users subscribed to the service. “We do not typically share that but it was in the thousands,” she said. Ms Bertram insisted that the company was compliant with tax laws.

Taxi drivers in Paris, Berlin and Madrid staged protests on the same day as the London demonstration. Transport for London has asked the High Court to decide whether the app, which uses GPS tracking to measure distance traveled and time to calculate fares, should be classed as a taximeter. Only black cabs are allowed by law to use one.

Thousands of taxi drivers brought central London to a standstill today during a “go-slow” protest against a mobile phone app that is undercutting their business.

A giant snake of black cabs choked Whitehall, the Mall, Victoria Embankment, Victoria Street, Piccadilly, Regent Street and countless other roads.

The cab drivers claimed to be acting in defence of their livelihoods, but for the organisers of a protest estimated to have cost the capital more than £100 million, it was also the opening salvo in a political war against Boris Johnson, the London mayor.

The Metropolitan police imposed an hour-long limit on the stoppage and set geographical boundaries. A spokesman said no arrests were made even though neither condition appeared to have been met.

At the heart of the dispute was a preliminary ruling by the mayor’s transport team that the Uber mobile phone app, which uses GPS tracking to measure time and distance to calculate fares, was different from a “taximeter”, which can only be carried by black cabs.

Uber claims that its passengers pay up to 50 per cent less than black taxi fares. Payments are made through a Dutch company, leading to claims that Uber is trying to avoid UK taxes, but the company insists that it pays everything it owes to the taxman.

Key roads were blocked by two lanes of black cabs in both directions as drivers congregated around Trafalgar Square. Bemused tourists looked on as taxi drivers stood in groups chatting next to their stationary vehicles.

Hundreds of would-be cabbies taking the “Knowledge” sounded the horns of their scooters as organisers from the RMT and GMB unions led chants of “Boris, Boris, Boris, out, out, out”.

Lewis Norton, of the RMT taxi drivers’ branch, said: “This is an ideological attack on public transport to give more power to the private sector and big business from America.”

Mr Johnson said: “Black cab drivers are the face of London. There must, however, be a place for new technology to work in harmony with the black cab, and we shouldn’t unnecessarily restrict new ideas that are of genuine benefit to Londoners.”

The protest organisers believe that Mr Johnson is failing to implement laws designed to safeguard their trade. They also accused him of calling in the police to disrupt their lawful protest.

Steve McNamara, general secretary of the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, clutching a public order notice served by officers before the protest had even begun, claimed that Mr Johnson was unfairly siding with Uber’s “pick-up service” and its backers, including Google and Goldman Sachs.

Jo Bertram, of Uber London, said: “Unsurprisingly, the LTDA, which is stuck in the dark ages, is intent on holding London to ransom and causing significant economic impact to Londoners today, estimated to be £125 million.”

Fewer Americans are inclined to drive, which means a shift from suburbs to city centres

‘Saturday night in the suburbs, that’s when you really want blow to your brains out.” Ah yes: the American suburbs, Don Draper in Mad Men was playing on a well-established theme: the white picket fences enclose some of the profoundest American angst: think The Ice Storm, The Stepford Wives, American Beauty.

For a generation Americans have loved their suburbs and hated themselves for loving them.

But for all the fuss created by arty types the direction of travel was still one way: out of the cities and into the burbs. Hollywood could scoff but it could never kill the dream of the silent majority. America has been, since the 1950s brought new cars and new roads into ordinary lives, an increasingly suburban nation. The suburbs have dominated the psyche of the United States and also its social values and its politics.

It all ended on Tuesday, January 27 this year (I shall argue for the sake of brevity) when the people of Atlanta fell out of love with their cars. On that day Atlanta came to a halt. There had been a warning of a snowstorm and workers had been told to get home early. A million cars took to the roads at almost the same moment. The rest of the nation giggled at the sight of southerners trying to drive in snow, then looked on increasingly perturbed as a disaster unfolded that had very little to do with snow (only two inches actually fell) but a great deal to do with gridlock and a clapped out infrastructure. And — the more thoughtful observed — a way of life that no longer works.

People were trapped in their cars for 12, 16, 20 hours. Children slept in schools. Atlanta historian Rebecca Burns wrote a few days later: “This snowstorm underscores the horrible history of suburban sprawl in the United States and the bad political decisions that drive it.”

Months after the snowstorm Americans are about to embark on the summer “driving season” with those words ringing in their ears. Are they taking any notice? Well, yes actually.

After rising almost continuously since the Second World War, driving by American households has declined nearly 10 per cent since 2004. At first people assumed it was the effect of the recession. But now they are not so sure. Car ownership, car driving, just isn’t sexy any more. Young Americans in particular prefer a cool app to a Mustang, a screen to a windscreen: this year under 70 per cent of American 19-year-olds have driving licences, down from 87 per cent two decades ago.

This disinclination to drive, and even to own a car, will change America. Combine it with the impact of technology on cars — driverless motoring and easy ride-sharing — and the picture is one of a nation about to reverse decades of sprawl and all that goes with it. You cannot live in the American suburbs without a car. You wouldn’t want to. So what will happen?

You are seeing the future already in San Francisco. On a visit there a few weeks ago I was told that the real action now in the tech world is in the city itself; Palo Alto and Mountain View still host the suburban headquarters of Google and the other vintage tech names; but the cool kids prefer the city. In fact Google is reported to have given in, planning a new building in the centre of San Francisco. It’s the coffee bars, stupid. And what occurs in them: the friendships, the chance encounters, the hook-ups of all varieties. That doesn’t happen in a drive-in Waffle House.

The big question of course is whether the re-urbanisation of America would change its politics. You have already ditched the car but do you need the gun if your neighbours are just across the landing? Perhaps you worry less about crime when the neighbourhood is mixed and fear of bogeymen reduced by actually living among them?

Another thought: do you continue to live life online and in the mall when you live in the city or do you meet people face to face more often? Does the hunger for live events in the internet age — concerts, exhibitions, demonstrations — encourage people to meet and talk again?

No one knows yet what the effects will be but it’s difficult to believe that America’s view of itself can remain unchanged in the face of what many left-wing Americans believe is a mighty revolution. America is only in the beginning stages of a historic urban reordering, according to the New York-based architect and academic Vishaan Chakrabarti, who wrote in The New York Times recently: “Given these demographic shifts, we have an unsurpassed opportunity to transform the United States into a more prosperous, sustainable and equitable country by encouraging a more urban America.”

No wonder so many Republicans equate public transport with socialism. They might be right.

Portable digital technology is a challenge to the old-fashioned organisation of taxis and hire cars

Sir, This week London is going to halt when angry cabbies protest about the Uber car service. They say Uber is taking their work but does not have to respect the same regulations.

Since Uber and Hailo appeared people have begun to realise that the private hire and taxi industry has enormous potential. As a trade, we should embrace these changes and accept that global taxi brands are coming. I think Uber is wrong in seeking to eliminate the taxi operator altogether, rather than working with existing networks. Private operators already have two thirds of the market and providing an excellent service.

Uber may be the Goliath of the taxi industry but the market is gearing up to meet the challenge head on. We live in dynamic times.

Chris Jordan

Cabfind.com

During the Lawson boom, the nation was running around in millions of Ford Escorts, Vauxhall Cavaliers and MG Metros. Nigel Lawson’s defining feelgood factor of the Thatcher era also led to 26 consecutive months of growing sales of new cars from 1987 to 1989.

Twenty-five years later and that record has been eclipsed. New-car sales up 7.7 per cent last month means that registration statistics have risen in the past 27 months, growth that began even before George Osborne dared to use the word “recovery”.

While the Fiesta and Astra — both much remodelled — span the age, 2014 buyers have created a market that has seen the rise of the Nissan Qashqai and the renaissance of the Fiat 500.

The boom has been fired by a cocktail of reasons. They include the diversion by manufacturers of vehicles to Britain during the sales slump in Europe; many households benefiting from the billions of pounds of payment protection insurance compensation payouts; and the latest financial product from the industry, the personal contract purchase, whereby motorists keep a car for three or four years with monthly payments before swapping it for another model at the end of their term.

Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), added some further ingredients. “Increasingly confident consumers have been drawn to some fantastic new products, innovative technologies, improved fuel economy and competitive deals,” he said.

Total new sales in the first five months of the year were up 11.6 per cent at 1.05 million, putting 2014 sales on course to break 2.4 million. Sales of 194,000 vehicles in May were the strongest for that month since 2004.

Growth in new cars being bought by businesses outstripped private buyers and the rest of the market, rising by 26 per cent last month.

In the commercial vehicle sector, demand for new vans was up 18 per cent in the month and 13 per cent higher in the year to date, though that was partially offset by a fall of about 20 per cent in the smaller market for trucks.

With monthly comparatives for car sales getting ever harder after a strong 2013, Mr Hawes warned that some heat could start coming out of the market. “With the SMMT forecasting an overall rise of about 6 per cent over the year, the coming months should see some levelling off in growth rates,” he said.

General Motors has dismissed 15 staff, disciplined five others and blamed a “pattern of incompetence and neglect” over more than a decade for an ignition switch failure in its Cobalt cars that led to at least 13 deaths.

In a brutally honest speech to about 1,000 employees in Michigan, Mary Barra, the chief executive, said that it was vital to “do the right thing”. She said that the company would compensate victims and their families and change its procedures and culture.

“This is not just another business crisis for GM,” she said. “I never want to put this behind us. I want to keep this painful experience permanently in our collective memories . . . because I never want this to happen again.”

Ms Barra, a former engineer, told employees to bring any safety concerns straight to her if they did not trust their supervisors.

Outlining the findings of an investigation by Anton Valukas, a former US attorney, into the faulty switch and the failure to act upon it for more than a decade, Ms Barra said that GM “operated in silos, with a number of individuals seemingly looking for reasons not to act, instead of finding ways to protect our customers.”

She said that individuals repeatedly “failed to disclose critical pieces of information” that could have enabled the company to respond properly to the problems with the ignition switches, which were first noticed in 2001. The fault caused engines to stall, shutting off both the power steering and airbags. A congressional panel investigating the issue revealed in April that the company changed the ignition switch in 2006 but did not change its part number, effectively masking the fix and making it harder for crash experts to identify the cause of the problem.

Ms Barra said that more than half of the 15 individuals dismissed were “senior executives . . . going into the top levels of the company”. They includes Ray DeGiorgio, the engineer who signed off on the change in the flawed part without changing its number, and Gary Altman, a programme engineering manager.

Mr Valukas’s report confirmed Ms Barra’s claim that she was unaware of the flawed switch until after she took over as chief executive last December. It suggested that the company initially failed to address the design flaw because it was regarded as a customer satisfaction issue, rather than safety. It also failed to link the stalling engines with the failure of airbags to deploy.

The company is opening a compensation plan to be run by Ken Feinberg, who handled compensation for 9/11 and the BP oil spill, for the families of those who lost their lives as a result of the problem and those who were seriously injured. The fund will start accepting claims in August. Although GM estimates that 13 deaths were associated with the faulty switch, lawyers for victims’ families say the real number is higher.

Michelle Krebs, an analyst at AutoTrader, said that Ms Barr’s speech had served not just to reassure GM customers, but also to rally employees. “This was her Pearl Harbour moment and she pulled it off. The fact that she said, ‘I don’t want us to forget this’, was really important,” Ms Krebs said.

A legal battle between two wealthy entrepreneurs is delaying plans for a “superhighway” that would allow owners of electric cars to drive most of the length of the country with just one short break to re-charge.

Elon Musk, the California-based billionaire who was the inspiration for Tony Stark in the Iron Man films, will tomorrow hand over the keys to the first five British buyers of his £70,000 Tesla S electric car, including the Fifty Shades of Grey author EL James.

However, Musk, who is also planning a manned base on Mars, is being prevented from installing rapid charging points at motorway service stations that would give his cars enough electricity in 20 minutes to drive more than 150 miles. Dale Vince, a former New Age traveller who owns Ecotricity, a wind energy company, has secured a high court injunction against Tesla Motors after it approached Welcome Break, the service station operator.

Mr Vince says that he has exclusive contracts with the major service station operators and an agreement with Tesla under which it was given confidential information. He argues that Tesla would be breaching that agreement by approaching the service stations directly.

Ecotricity has stopped work on two charging points for Tesla at South Mimms services on the M25 in Hertfordshire and Hopwood Park on the M42 south of Birmingham. It is unclear when plans will proceed for several more “supercharger” points. Mr Vince said that he had been working for three years on installing charging points at service stations for all types of electric car and had agreed to accommodate the Tesla car, which has a much bigger battery and requires a more powerful charger.

“They wanted the contracts we have with motorway operators to be broken so they could enter into their own contracts. We had offered them everything they needed,” Mr Vince said. He claimed Tesla sent Ecotricity an email last month that he described as a “declaration of war”.

“They said they were flying into Britain in a couple of days and they were going to blacken our name with the government and the motorway operators,” he said. “It was a very threatening and dark email.”

He said he was concerned that Tesla could use its influence at Westminster. Nick Clegg appointed Mr Musk last year to advise the government on how to persuade more drivers to switch to electric cars.

Mr Vince said that he had been willing to work with Tesla even though he considered it “wasteful” that the company was demanding exclusive parking spaces at re-charging points rather than agreeing to share spaces with other types of electric car.

Tesla said that it was unable to comment because of the injunction. A spokeswoman said: “We are committing to having superchargers for our customers.”

Edmund King, president of the AA, said he would like the companies to settle their differences. “We must overcome the ‘range anxiety’ which deters people from buying electric cars and we do not need squabbling over charging points,” he said. “When there is serious uptake of these cars we are going to need thousands more charging points.”