During the period in which Uber operated self-driving cars in California without a permit, a bystander observed an Uber vehicle run a red light without stopping. Uber initially claimed the incident was human error. But the self-driving car was in fact driving itself, according to two Uber employees and based on Uber documents viewed by the New York Times.
Refused to obtain California DMV permit for driverless testing
In December 2016, Uber began testing self-driving cars in California. But it failed to obtain a $150 permit from the California Department of Motor Vehicles — not a clerical error, but instead an affirmative decision not to obtain such a permit because, Uber leaders claimed, their vehicles did not require such a permit. Thus Uber launched its self-driving pilot without notifying state regulators.
The Verge summarizes:
“In their minds, they really thought they weren’t autonomous,” Jessica Gonzalez, assistant deputy director of public affairs at the DMV, told The Verge. “But we decide what’s autonomous. And under our regulations, it was.”
The core of the disagreement was whether Uber’s vehicles constituted “autonomous vehicle” under California law. Uber claimed that its cars required a human being in the driver’s seat, hence were not autonomous. But California law defined autonomous based on technology (“any vehicle equipped with technology that has the capability of operating or driving the vehicle without the active physical control or monitoring of a natural person”, emphasis added), not just usage.
Contrary to Anthony Levandowski’s email to regulators that “We don’t do AV testing,” The Verge also reported evidence that the Uber vehicles were in fact used in autonomous mode. For one, The Verge re ports its staff riding in the back seat of one of Uber’s self-driving SUVs in San Francisco prior to the public launch in December. The Verge also reports that its reporters sat behind the driver’s seat while the vehicle drove itself. The Verge explains:
In both cases, the vehicle drove itself for long stretches of the trip, deftly handling intersections, bridges, and pedestrians without human intervention. There were times when a chime would sound, signaling the driver to take control. But other than that, the car was capable of operating “without the physical control or monitoring of a natural person,” as stipulated under the law.
The idea behind these public demonstrations was to prove that Uber’s self-driving vehicles were capable of handling dense urban environments, in anticipation of one day being capable of operating without a steering wheel, pedals, or even a human in the driver’s seat.
After the dispute became public, Uber removed its vehicles from California and began testing in Arizona instead.
Autonomous vehicles made unsafe and unlawful turns through bike lanes
When Uber’s autonomous cars were driving in San Francisco, they violated state law as to treatment of bike lanes. The Verge explains:
San Francisco Bicycle Coalition … executive director, Brian Weidenmeier … said he twice saw an Uber car in self-driving mode make an “unsafe right-hook-style turn through a bike lane” during a trial of the service on Monday last week. Rather than merging into bike lanes early to make right-hand turns, as per California state law, the Uber vehicle reportedly pulled across the bike lanes at the last second, risking collisions with oncoming cyclists.
Weidenmeier explained further in a post with diagrams and citations to applicable California law.
Uber admitted that its autonomous vehicles have a “problem” with their treatment of bike lanes.
San Francisco Police Department finds that Uber and Lyft drivers committed 65% of downtown traffic violations
At a hearing, Commander of Municipal Transportation for the San Francisco Police Department Robert O’Sullivan, reported that Uber and Lyft drivers were cited for the majority of traffic violations in downtown San Francisco. In particular, he reported that on the dozen tags SFPD studied, Uber and Lyft drivers caused 1723 of 2656 violations, 65%.
The most common violations resulted from using transit-only lanes (authorized for use by buses and taxis but not Uber or Lyft) (1144 violations). The second-most common category was obstructing a bicycle lane (183 violations).
San Francisco Supervisor Aaron Peskin remarked on the seriousness of the situation and added that “We should take this to the state attorney general.”
Criticized by San Francisco City Attorney
After the City of San Francisco requested records about driver safety, disability access, and other operations, via a subpoena, Uber objected and refused to cooperate. San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera summarized Uber’s approach: “Unfortunately, Uber is doing what it always seems to do: raise obstacles and drag its feet— all while continuing to flout the law.”
Refused to provide driver names to San Francisco city government
When the city of San Francisco demanded that Uber provide it with drivers’ names and contact information so the city could demand that drivers obtain business licenses and pay applicable fees, Uber claimed that disclosures would violate drivers’ right to privacy. In a June 2017 ruling, Superior Court Judge Richard Ulmer disagreed, ruling that the city Treasurer and Tax Collector had legal authority to demand the information. He said compliance would not be unduly burdensome, and that any drivers who wished to challenge license requirements could do so on their own.
Lyft provided the data to San Fransisco without litigation.
Recruited drivers with exaggerated earnings claims
The Federal Trade Commission flagged Uber exaggerating the yearly and hourly income drivers could make in certain cities. For example, Uber claimed on its site that uberX drivers’ annual median income was more than $90,000 in New York and more than $74,000 in San Francisco — but the FTC found that the actual medians were $61,000 and $53,000 respectively, and that less than 10 percent of all drivers in those cities earned the amounts Uber touted.
The FTC also alleged that Uber made false hourly earnings claims in job listings on Craigslist and elsewhere. In eighteen different cities where Uber advertised hourly earnings on Craigslist, fewer than 30% of drivers earned the promised amount. In some cities, as few as 10% of drivers earned the promised amount. Details in the FTC’s complaint.
Uber paid $20 million to settle these claims (along with claims about vehicle financing terms). The funds were used to provide refunds to affected drivers.
Failed to take action on drunk driving complaints
The California Public Utility Commission found that Uber violated CPUC “zero-tolerance” rules in its handling of 151 complaints, failing to suspend and/or investigate the drivers. In only 22 of 154 complaints did Uber suspend the driver within one hour of a passenger complaint. Furthermore, some of the supposedly-suspended driers were nonetheless able to log in to Uber, respond to ride requests, and provide additional rides.
CPUC further found that, contrary to CPUC rules, Uber failed to implement a “zero tolerance” policy that immediately suspended a driver for a DUI allegation. Instead, Uber’s process had multiple steps and multiple opportunities for error by Uber staff. In contrast, CPUC rules required Uber to suspend the driver before verifying the validity of the complaint.
CPUC also found limited evidence that Uber followed up with passengers to investigate allegations, including Uber failing to follow up in several hours or even a full day after a passenger’s complaint.
In light of these practices, CPUC recommended a penalty of $1.1 million.