Uber

Uber Vows to Make AV Test Data Public and Boost Safety Efforts After NTSB Backlash

October 22, 2020 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

After the National Transportation Safety Board blamed Uber Technologies Inc.’s policies for a fatal 2018 crash involving a self-driving vehicle, Uber has promised to prioritize publicizing safety information regarding its self-driving technology efforts.

Uber updated its voluntary safety assessment, sent to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on August 28th, with its new pledge. This is the company’s first effort against criticism regarding its autonomous driving program since the NTSB first published its beliefs about the first fatal pedestrian accident involving a self-driving vehicle–one of Uber’s–in Tempe, Arizona in 2018.

“We support the idea of transparency and making the public understand what we do,” said Uber’s Advanced Technologies Group head of safety, Nat Beuse. This new voluntary safety assessment is a “complete update” regarding what Uber originally told regulators in 2018.

The March 18th, 2018 incident involved an inattentive Uber safety operator in an autonomous vehicle that hit and killed a 49-year-old pedestrian crossing a dimly-lit roadway. The vehicle was in self-drive mode while the safety operator sat behind the wheel.

This accident caused nation-wide backlash against self-driving cars, although police say the vehicle was operating for testing purposes only.

The NTSB declared that the driver had failed to act safely while distracted by his or her cellphone, and that Uber was at fault for having subpar safety risk assessment procedures, inadequate vehicle operator oversight, and a lack of any mechanism addressing complacency by operators.

Cell phone distraction or otherwise tuning out has been considered a major issue surrounding AV technology, and more researchers are studying just how much advanced driving systems create worse human drivers. Still, many AV supporters believe any current issues will be solved once self-driving tech improves to the point where, hopefully, car crashes will be eliminated.

In its assessment, Uber points out current “enhancements,” such as a new “Safety Case Framework” it claims will allow for open-sourced peer reviews. Additionally, the company said new internal safety management regulations and an independent Safety and Responsibility Advisory Board will be put in place.

Still, safety advocates have spoken against the Trump Administration’s implementation of voluntary approaches to self-driving vehicle regulation, saying voluntary reports are more like marketing brochures instead of formal regulatory filing submissions.

After Uber’s fatal incident, the legislation being considered in Washington to boost the number of autonomous vehicles manufacturers could produce began being heavily debated. All self-driving car testing was suspended by Uber for four months, and its Arizona driverless testing program was also shut down, causing the layoffs of 300 employees.

Currently, 23 various companies have made public their own self-driving safety assessments, including Apple Inc., Ford Motor Co, General Motors Co., Lyft Inc., Mercedes-Benz AG, Toyota Motor Corp., and Waymo. Uber is one of a few that have begun updating voluntary assessments, Beuse noted.

Advocates of consumer safety are using this example to push for stricter self-driving car regulations and more frequent consumer-focused safety assessment reports. Many have also criticized government agencies for being too lenient on the firms working to improve vehicle autonomy, and on voluntary reporting itself.

“It’s nice that Uber has decided this is the right time to update its so-called report, but a consumer-focused agency would have long ago mandated all driverless vehicle manufacturers regularly submit useful safety details regarding their public road tests,” said Center for Auto Safety executive director, Jason Levine.

The major problem with autonomous vehicle testing is weak federal oversight, said Ensar Becic, an NTSB project manager. He explained that even a regulated, basic self-driving vehicle test, “be it an obstacle course, a perceptual test, or tangible requirements such as testing for miles or adherence to development standards” is not common enough for safe, widespread testing.

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration’s automated vehicle guidance has just 12 testing safety suggestions, and although the NHTSA encourages AV companies to submit self-assessments regarding these 12 elements, few do. Additionally, the AV guidance has no given metrics for autonomous driving system developers to understand whether or not they have effectively achieved all safety goals related to those 12 areas.

Although NTSB members are glad Uber is currently cooperating with the investigation after the incident’s findings were released late last year, they believe Uber has an overall “ineffective safety culture” that led to the fatal crash.

London Transit Refuses to Renew Uber’s License

December 19, 2019 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

LONDON – On November 25th, London’s transit authority announced its refusal to renew Uber’s operating license.

This shutdown comes after London transport officials have scrutinized the tech company more closely than ever, following concerns about imposter drivers and overall passenger security.

According to Transport for London, there has been “a pattern of failures” that placed passengers and their safety at risk, which is a main reason it decided not to extend Uber’s license. Uber has had a tough relationship with London transport, and the regulator finally decided to let the license expire on November 25th after it found unauthorized drivers were carrying out thousands of rides.

“At this stage, TfL can’t be confident that Uber has the robust processes in place to prevent another serious safety breach in the future,” said London Mayor Sadiq Khan in a statement.

Back in 2017, Transport for London had already once revoked Uber’s license before, but had its decision overturned when Uber appealed it and was granted a 15-month license. TfL decided to extend it by another two months, but with an additional 20 conditions.

Regarding the most recent choice to fully revoke Uber’s operation throughout London, TfL said it came to the conclusion after Uber’s systems “seem to have been comparatively easily manipulated” by drivers.

“While we recognize Uber has made improvements, it is unacceptable that Uber has allowed passengers to get into minicabs with drivers who are potentially unlicensed and uninsured,” said TfL’s director of licensing and regulation, Helen Chapman. “We cannot be confident that similar issues won’t happen again in [the] future.”

A recent change to Uber’s operating system made for one of these major issues, when it allowed unvetted and unauthorized drivers to upload their own photos to other existing drivers’ accounts.

Because of this, at least 14,000 Uber trips took place where these imposter drivers–who would appear to be the driver that was actually booked–were able to pick up passengers on uninsured trips.

Some of these drivers were not only uninsured, but also unlicensed. According to TfL, it had previously revoked the driver’s license of one of these particular unauthorized Uber drivers.

Additionally, Transport for London also found another serious breach, in which dismissed or suspended drivers were able to make a new account on the app and pick up passengers once again.

Uber has fired back, saying that because TfL found the company fit to operate in its most recent license renewal, its current decision is “extraordinary and wrong.”

“We understand we’re held to a high bar, as we should be. But this TfL decision is just wrong,” said Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi over Twitter. “Over the last two years, we have fundamentally changed how we operate in London. We have come very far–and we will keep going, for the millions of drivers and riders who rely on us.”

Uber has 21 days from the license expiration to file an appeal, which the company says it intends to do. During the appeals process, it can continue to operate as usual.

In hopes of making changes for the better, Uber said on top of continuing to audit each of its London drivers–which it has been doing over the last two months–it plans to launch a “facial matching process” across its verification system, which is currently powered by Microsoft. This will work by requiring drivers to take selfies periodically for the system to compare with their account photos. They will also have to actively prove their identity by smiling, blinking, and/or turning their head.

If the appeal is denied, it will be an enormous setback for the company, which underwent a $1.15 billion loss last quarter. Shares fell by more than 5% in premarket trading, and Khosrowshahi forecast that Uber wouldn’t turn a profit until 2021.

“If Uber ultimately was not able to operate in London, it will be a ‘seismic blow’ to the company’s European operations,” said Dan Ives, managing director at Wedbush Securities. He added that it “could have a major ripple impact across other European cities,” and that imposter driver problem is not limited to Europe. He said investors should be aware.

For instance, American safety advocates have been criticizing Uber for having less-thorough background checks on its drivers than traditional taxi companies have, as Uber doesn’t check its drivers’ fingerprints.

This isn’t the only instance where regulators have the upper hand over the rideshare company.

On top of California’s recent legislation which required companies to treat rideshare drivers as employees rather than as independent contractors (making Uber provide health and other benefits on top of insurance for its drivers), New York has enacted a minimum wage for Uber drivers (which the company meets by raising prices for customers), and New Jersey’s labor department has claimed Uber misclassified drivers as independent contractors and recently sought over $640 million from the company.

NTSB Issues Safety Recommendations After Fatal Uber Automated Vehicle Crash

December 11, 2019 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

The idea of self-driving vehicles has been in the works for many years, and has recently come into full fruition, with multiple manufacturing companies jumping on the futuristic trend.

However, federal regulators are now being pressured by the National Transportation Safety Board to put in place a new review process for automated test vehicles after an Uber automated test vehicle hit and killed a pedestrian.

Last year, the NTSB released its preliminary report regarding its investigation of the fatal crash, which occurred in Tempe, Arizona between a modified 2017 Volvo XC90–which was occupied by a single vehicle operator but was running on its computer-controlled self-driving system–and a pedestrian in March 2018.

While the vehicle operator wasn’t hurt, the 49-year-old female pedestrian suffered fatal injuries.

According to the report, the pedestrian was wearing dark-colored clothing, didn’t look toward the vehicle until the moment before the impact took place, and crossed the road in an area without direct lighting. The pedestrian was also pushing a bicycle that did not have side reflectors, although it did have a front and rear reflectors that were positioned perpendicular to the oncoming vehicle’s path. She also didn’t use the nearby crosswalk, but rather entered the road from a brick median. Additionally, the pedestrian’s post-accident toxicology test showed both methamphetamine and marijuana in her system.

As for the test vehicle, the report said Uber had equipped it with an in-development self-driving system that was comprised of forward- and side-facing cameras, radars, navigation sensors, Light Detection and Ranging, and a data storage unit. It was also factory-equipped with Volvo Cars’ driver assistance functions, such as collision avoidance with automatic emergency braking, driver alertness detection, and road sign information. These functions are only disabled when the test vehicle is in computer control mode.

The data from the self-driving system showed that the car’s vehicle operator intervened by grabbing the steering wheel less than a second before the impact, which occurred at 39 mph. The operator also began braking less than a second after the impact.

At 1.3 seconds before the impact, the self-driving system did determine emergency braking was needed, but these maneuvers are not enabled when the vehicle is being computer-controlled. The vehicle operator is expected to take action at the point, as to reduce the possibility for erratic vehicle movement. The system also does not alert the operator of the need for emergency braking.

During this month’s board meeting, which was held in order to determine the probable cause of the crash, the NTSB said an Uber division’s “inadequate safety culture” is what allowed the fatal collision to take place.

The NTSB found that the immediate cause of the collision was the Uber ATG operator’s failure to monitor the road and the automated driving system closely enough–which it says was due to the her being distracted during the trip by her cell phone.

The NTSB also says Uber ATG held inadequate safety and risk assessment procedures, had a lack of adequate mechanisms for addressing vehicle operators’ automation complacency, and gave an overall lack of oversight of its vehicle operators in general.

Here are the investigation’s findings:

-The automated driving system was able to detect the pedestrian a full 5.6 seconds before impact. The system did continue to track the pedestrian up until the crash, but was never able to accurately determine what the object crossing the road was, or what its path would most likely be.

-If the vehicle operator had been paying close attention, she would likely have had enough time to effectively react to the pedestrian and either mitigate the impact or avoid the crash completely.

-Uber ATG managers rarely actively monitored the behavior of their vehicle operators, although they had the opportunity to do so. This oversight was made worse by Uber’s decision not to include a second operator in the vehicle during this testing.

-Uber ATG added a safety management system, among other updates, to address the present deficiencies.

The NTSB made six total recommendations to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Uber ATG, and the state of Arizona–including that NHTSA requires developmental automated driving system test operators to submit safety self-assessment plans before they can begin operating on public roads. NHTSA will have to review these plans thoroughly to make sure all necessary safety precautions and standards are met.

New Trucking Apps are Changing the Game for Drivers

November 27, 2019 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

Recently, we reported on the new sector of Uber: Uber Freight, an app which works to allow truck drivers and operators to claim shipments straight from their phones, as well as to get fixed rates and instant confirmation, tracking tools, and guaranteed seven-day payments.

However, the gratification of apps such as these seems to be fizzling out.

Uber Freight promised to motivate more new truckers to enter the industry in the midst of a driver shortage, and to easily allow drivers to match with jobs without the need of a middleman.

It also claimed it would allow drivers to pick their own hours and diminish the need to worry about rate negotiations.

For many independent drivers, though, Uber Freight and other similar apps, which seemed too good to be true, turned out to be just that.

Amit Sekhri, a driver who took up the vocation during the Great Recession, started noticing that not only was he enduring lengthy hours and weeks on end away from home, but he also was constantly dealing with late payments and incessant phone calls. Like a majority of truckers, Sekhri was booking his jobs through freight bookers, who do most of their business via phone call and habitually pay their drivers late.

Eventually, Sekhri came across Convoy, an app not unlike Uber Freight that allowed him to select nearby loads via his phone’s GPS and get paid within two days after completing a job. Now, Sekhri also dispatches four other drivers through Convoy delivery orders as well as through Uber Freight.

“It’s pretty easy. You like the price, you accept it, you assign it to a driver, and you can track them,” Sekhri said. “I don’t have to call the driver and say, ‘Where you at?’”

But problems began arising quickly. The number of jobs has started to dwindle, and drivers have begun complaining about low prices on Convoy. Three truck drivers, including Sekhri, recently discussed their disappointment with Bloomberg.

“I’ve got four kids to support,” said Sekhri. “I’m still hanging in and hoping it will get better.”

One of the other drivers had to close his business in March.

Convoy has even been negatively compared to its Uber counterpart, as truckers notice its business model has not been turning a profit. Convoy is planning to expand a bidding system, which would make it a kind of freight-eBay. Drivers would be able to place offers for a number of shipment gigs, which Convoy explains would help drivers find more work.

This theory isn’t proven, though, and could easily allow job payments to decrease, thus only making the low payment problem worse.

Drivers are continuing to try and find effective ways to save on costs. Although Convoy originally strived to become the new face of the trucking industry, it has instead become a reminder for drivers to pinch pennies.

For trucker Ira Lawrence, however, penny pinching wasn’t enough. After signing up with Convoy and buying a truck in 2017, he quickly found that it would be nearly impossible to make a living this way. With insurance costing over $1,600 a month, weekly fuel costing up to $3,000, and monthly maintenance exceeding $1,500, he was unable to stay in business with the vast majority of his jobs coming in through Convoy.

“We thought it would be this glorified life of: Get a load; stay there for a few days; and then get a load to somewhere else,” Lawrence said. “The overall cost of owning a truck is through the roof.”

The problem at hand is that while Lawrence and other drivers need to be paid more, shippers continually want to pay less. The quick payouts through Convoy helped him to stay in the gain for a while, but Lawrence was eventually forced to shut down his business after the low payments made it impossible for him to cover his insurance costs.

Insurance is an ongoing issue for these gig apps, as drivers are required to have high coverage for their cargo in addition to what they need for their trucks. For example, Uber Freight drivers have to cover all damages when they are at fault in the event of an accident, and must have a plan with at least $100,000 in liability coverage for cargo, as well as $1 million for their trucks.

The driver would then take on all responsibility for damages, which isn’t typically the case with traditional truck drivers, whose manufacturers or trucking companies are usually held responsible.

This is another ongoing issue, especially for innocent drivers involved in a trucking-related accident. Because these truckers are only required to have insurance covering the truck and its cargo, it is never guaranteed that hospital bills or car damage to the innocent party would be fully covered.

Still, Convoy plans to work toward exceeding the success of other trucking companies, including Uber Freight. However, Uber says it plans to spend $2 billion to expand its operations throughout Chicago.

Chicago Mayor Considering Upping Fees for Ride-Share Passengers

October 20, 2019 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

CHICAGO–For her 2020 budget, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot is planning to possibly implement higher fees for riders of solo Uber and Lyft trips, and wants to keep rates lower for those taking a pool.

This announcement comes two weeks before her first budget address, where she will explain her plans to remedy the $838 million deficit for the city in 2020.

On many occasions, Lightfoot has discussed issuing a tax on all drivers entering certain zones in the Chicago metropolitan area in an attempt to raise revenue for the city and decrease traffic congestion. She also hinted recently that for the 2020 year, this tax may take the form of an additional fee on ride-share app passengers entering the central business district.

In her August “State of the City” speech, Lightfoot said these plans come as a way to “address rampant congestion” and to “solve the problem of traffic, pollution, and other issues while simultaneously bringing in a fair share of funding.”

Last Thursday, she told WLS-AM 890 that this new plan will likely include a break in fees for riders who opt for Lyft and Uber pooling options (where ride-share drivers pick up multiple passengers in the same direction), because those services will add less to congestion than rides transporting single-passengers.

“We definitely have heard, and we are considering, because we’ve gotten requests and input on giving a break to those folks that are using pool transportation and charging more for single-occupancy rides,” said Lightfoot. “We’re certainly looking at that.”

However, Lightfoot does acknowledge the difficulty in getting the state legislature to pass these new taxes, as lawmakers are set to meet for only six days during the fall–and for now, the focus on tax structure changes for Chicago lies primarily elsewhere. “The veto session is going to be really, really short,” she explains, “and we’ve got two very big priorities, which is casinos and a real estate transfer tax.”

Lightfoot also says she is even more skeptical about getting state lawmakers to approve the sales tax she has been aiming for in regards to high-end services.

Currently, Chicago city fees on Uber and Lyft trips come out to 72 cents per ride, plus another $5 for rides beginning at destinations with heavy traffic, such as McCormick Place, Navy Pier, and Chicago airports.

With a recent surge in driving around the city, transit rates have been flat while vehicle ownership is decreasing. Some transportation experts believe congestion pricing is an “untapped resource” for Chicago revenue.

“There are certain areas where congestion is getting intolerable,” said Joseph Schwieterman, DePaul University transportation expert. “[We] have to do something. It’s just going to get worse, and congestion pricing is well-suited for that.”

Several other large cities around the globe have found congestion pricing to be effective and lucrative, including London, Stockholm and Singapore. New York City is following suit, with fees coming into place for those traveling below 60th Street in Manhattan by 2021.

But, will fees charged to Uber and Lyft passengers work in the same way, pushing commuters to choose more public ways of transit and thus decreasing overall city traffic?

It seems to be the way of the metro-future. Los Angeles transportation officials have been working toward a tax on Uber and Lyft rides in Los Angeles County, which is part of a much larger plan to begin better managing city congestion as well as to fund transportation projects to be fully implemented before the 2028 Olympic Games.

What’s more–funds being funneled into city revenue by public transit tend to decrease when Uber and Lyft are more easily accessible. A 2018 study of travel patterns showed that 60 percent of city locals would have traveled by foot, bike, or transit if ride-hailing services had not been as available.

Los Angeles’ public transit ridership has plummeted by 20 percent over the last few years, despite billions of dollars being spent on new rail lines. Uber and Lyft are believed to be one of the biggest factors contributing to this issue, and it’s safe to assume the case is comparable to that of Chicago.

With a tax on rides that will deter solo ride-share travelers, that will also bring in revenue for city infrastructure funding, it appears these new fees will come into play much sooner than later.

Uber Freight: What does it Mean for Truck Drivers?

October 18, 2019 by Levinson and Stefani Leave a Comment

For trucking industry employees, commercial trucking can bring many difficulties. From month-long waits for payments, rate negotiations, and problems tracking data, the industry itself can be overly costly and inefficient.

Enter Uber Freight: an app introduced by Uber in 2017, which lets both drivers and owner/operators claim shipments easily, right on their mobile devices.

Here’s what it does: in an era of truck driver shortage, the app aims to motivate more workers to enter this career path by making load-matching easier. Although there are currently other apps out there with similar capabilities, Uber Freight is meant to allow drivers to book shipments without a middleman.

It also has fixed rates with instant confirmation, seven-day payment guarantees for drivers (as opposed to common 30-day guarantees in the industry), tracking tools, and customizable preferences.

Because Uber Freight drivers can book their own loads any time through the app, they no longer need to worry about rate negotiations or having to communicate with shippers over the phone or by fax. They also have quick access to trusted shippers–therefore giving them more overall control and convenience in their careers.

So, how does insurance for Uber Freight drivers work?

As is the case right now for most rideshare app drivers, Uber Freight drivers must cover damages of an accident (should they be at fault) from their own insurance. Uber Freight drivers are required to have a plan with at least $100,000 in liability coverage for their cargo as well as $1 million for the truck itself. Although this coverage could potentially pay for damages in an Uber Freight-driver-caused accident, Uber itself would not be liable, as drivers are not hired as employees, but as independent contractors.

Because of this, the driver would take on all responsibility for the accident and damage coverage–something that is not always the case with other commercial truck drivers.

What does this mean for innocent drivers involved in the crash?

Because the insurance would generally cover the truck and its cargo, there is no guarantee that car damage or even hospital bills would be fully covered should the other driver be hurt.

However in “fault car accident” states, such as California, at-fault parties can include maintenance crews or even the city for unsafe roadways, as well as the truck manufacturer itself. An Uber Freight driver’s coverage would only pay for the damages caused by his or her own actions.

This could change soon, though. We reported recently on a new California law that is upending both Uber and Lyft by requiring drivers to be classified as official employees, rather than independent contractors.

California Governor Gavin Newsom just signed legislation that will change the business models of rideshare apps in order to allow gig economy workers to be reclassified.

The new law is predicted to have an enormous impact on the American workforce–especially when over 1 percent of laborers work for Lyft or Uber a number which also includes Uber Freight truck drivers.

Once the law becomes active in January 2020, all drivers for these companies will be allowed to work as employees and will have access to a minimum wage, unemployment benefits, disability insurance, and union rights.

Although it is currently unclear how exactly Uber Freight drivers’ benefits will function under the new legislation–as it exempts groups of workers who set their own rates and hours–it can be assumed these truck drivers will have benefits in alignment with their rideshare driver counterparts.

However, after the bill was passed this month, Uber began pursuing “several legal and political options” to continue classifying its drivers as independent contractors, saying their “work is outside the usual course of Uber’s business.”

Uber says this is possible because it claims its drivers pass the ABC test: A) Drivers are free from company control and direction; B) Drivers’ work falls beyond Uber’s usual business; C) Each driver is working as an independent business.

Whether or not their claims will prove Uber drivers exempt from the new law has yet to be decided.

Gig Workers Rising, an organization that has been campaigning in favor of the bill and aims to support and educate rideshare drivers, delivery drivers and couriers, continues to fight for workers on these career paths in order to help them gain better wages, working conditions and opportunities.