Uber's history defends the position that they're willing to do things regardless of the chance of getting caught and being willing to deal with the fallout later. That's kind of their whole thing - drive in a city no matter the regulations of taxis and the like, and deal with the bureaucracy after. Why wouldn't they alter things if given the chance?

There's upside if they don't get caught, and Uber has a history of not making good choices as far as legality and ethics are concerned.

> There is only downside

Not true. There is a lot of upside if Uber is declared blameless and innocent in this accident. It could be the difference between Uber deploying self-driving taxis within a year or four. Uber hasn't shied away from this sort of "risky gambles" before. I mean, their entire business model was based on avoiding or breaking laws in multiple countries.

So don't tell me "it's very unlikely Uber did this". With Uber's track record, I'd rather believe the opposite until proven otherwise. You know the saying: "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me 7 times, and I'm the idiot". I don't like being an idiot.

Uber, like many companies, is filled with people who may put their own interests or even the very-near-term corporate interests over the long term interests of the company.

Given other missteps by Uber's management (which led to a business impact), I think we should not count on them being purely rational actors.

There is definitely upside. You know, not getting caught with a crap system that shouldn't be on the road.