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

Something about this doesn't make sense to me.

I take it for granted that the staff at Uber would do anything not to lose the license. I am sure that, for 17 months, they've been investing heavily in security systems, ID verification etc. They must have followed up on every complaint. If I were them, I would have just manually followed everything that the Cabs do till I had a technology in place.

It also seems that the city is making some effort to give them space to improve: 15 months, then 2 months.

So then why didn't the gap close in time? Is this because the technology platform was so massive that turning it just took more time? Or is there something about the details that I can't see?

Edit: I start with the assumption that both Uber and the City are trying to do their best, and don't ascribe nefarious intent to anyone.

You would think Uber Autonomous Vehicles group would do everything they can not to hit pedestrians. Yet according to the NTSB, previous to killing a pedestrian in Arizona Uber had a weak safety culture (https://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/Documents/2019-HWY18MH010-B...).

Even worse, "Pedestrian outside crosswalk not assigned goal of crossing street", "Tracking history not considered when classification changes", "Predicted path depended on object’s goal".

Basically they configured it to run over people who crossed outside a sidewalk.

I would not assume Uber are doing their best. Or, insofar as they define "best", it's "what can we do as quickly as possible with no consideration to what is legal".

At the corporate level, Uber has a culture of not complying with orders and doing whatever they want and just paying the fines for doing so (see other Uber-related posts on HN). With that in perspective, it's not surprising they seem to have ignored this.

From everything I've seen (and admittedly, that's all hearsay), Uber isn't really interested in "doing their best". Their fundamental philosophy from the get go has been to be "disruptive" by simply ignoring regulations and aim at becoming "too popular to ban".

I would not be surprised one bit to learn that they did very little or even nothing at all to address the concerns.

> "Pedestrian outside crosswalk not assigned goal of crossing street", "Tracking history not considered when classification changes", "Predicted path depended on object’s goal"

To be fair, I could see myself implementing these sort of heuristics to get a working prototype. On the other hand, I deliberately avoid working on life-critical software because of how easily it can go wrong.

That is a very cynical view, one I do not share, but one that it seems is shared by most people here.

But, for the sake of argument, let me grant you that some large subset of the decision makers were callous about these safety concerns.

I don't know how they would still not be sensitive to the need to respond to the authority that has only conditionally let it have its license back. I mean, that sort of threat has a tendency to focus one, even if one is cynical about their motives.

One possibility is that, as in the US [0], the London taxi industry has a lot of sway in politics. I'd guess that the taxi lobby had a lot to do with this decision.

“Any London politician wants the black cabs on their side. They carry a political and electoral clout that is way beyond their numbers. There is nothing secret about that,” says Daniel Moylan, who was deputy chairman of TfL under Mr Johnson. [1]

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/07/31/the-t... [1] https://www.ft.com/content/41a0ff40-a383-11e7-9e4f-7f5e6a7c9...

OK, but you absolutely wouldn't let a self-driving car out without ernest human supervision or really rigorous testing would you?

One reason may be the company culture can't do both things at the same time? There's a world of difference between the kind of people and processes you want in a safety-critical project versus a fast-moving app startup.

Uber has to straddle both sides with great risk of leaning toward the wrong side in any particular scenario.

That is certainly possible -- although I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt.

However, if that were the case, why not just say no license? Why give an opportunity to Uber to show an improvement in their numbers? And why do it twice?

SD vehicles are their pastime, being licenced is their bread and butter (or will be, after the vc well dries up)

It's possible that the team dedicated to ensuring that Uber met the requirements in London was doing their best, but were hampered by a lack of resources and a higher policy of "regulation is negotiable" which has worked for them in the US - i.e. a feeling of "if we can't meet the requirements, we're hardly going to get kicked out of the city".

I work in AV eng/research, and reading the details of the Uber crash was utterly shocking to me in terms of the corners cut. I can get reflexively frustrated at the slowing of progress and pushing changes induced by our safety constraints and testing, but I've always been pretty happy with the choices we've made. Uber made multiple obscenely negligent choices that I don't think are remotely defensible. There are plenty of hacky heuristics in the industry, but it's pretty central to industry practice to avoid hacks that make you _less_ safe.

It's not all or nothing, and no one is suggesting that the taxi commission is 100% corrupt and in thrall to Big Taxi. The way they're approaching Uber is likely a compromise between kowtowing to business special interests and serving their constituents (as pretty much all policy in every country is).

A human driver would also follow the same heuristic. That is why it was programmed that way. People don't assume people are going to randomly walk in front of their cars except at cross walks.

If it were true that this was all caused by black cab drivers pulling strings, Uber would have been thrown out of London years and years ago.

Multiple mayors - including the current PM who was once Mayor of London - have explained that there needs to be an open culture.

There are other private hire vehicle operator firms in London. Addison Lee is huge, and there are many, many "minicab" firms. They all comply with TfL's licensing and vetting procedures. Uber does not.

This isn't "black cabs vs Uber", this is "black cabs, Addison Lee, all the minicab firms, TfL and the Mayor of London demanding basic vetting procedures that everybody else does without question or issue".

Idk about you, but if I see a human start to step into the road I slow down/stop depending on how close they are. Someone stopped and facing the road looking both ways obviously may be attempting to cross, even if "illegally"

The headline tells you everything you need to know: they've lost their license, but they'll continue operating. Uber doesn't believe that the government will actually stop them, and so far they've been right.

Black cabs are in their own category due to The Knowledge and the general vetting process, but if what you say is true, why don't we see Addison Lee, minicabs, Kapten, Bolt and Ola getting the same level of scrutiny? Do we have any reason to believe that any of those have implemented policies and procedures that make them more fit and proper?

I'm enough of a jerk that sometimes, if they are at the edge of the road, I will stop and honk. Even if they are engrossed in their phone. Because, in my jurisdiction, it is illegal to not give the pedestrian the right of way at a crosswalk. Pedestrians who aren't planning on entering the roadway shouldn't stand at a crosswalk and not enter.

it really doesn't. The worst they'll do it block off a bridge.

Plus, there are two taxi systems, the Black cab, and the minicab. There are way more minicabs than black cabs, and they are a much bigger competitor to uber than black cabs.