I‘m quite sure this would backfire A LOT in terms of brand damage. Uber in a sense made history today and now has actual blood on their hands. And if such a strategy should EVER leak (Dieselgate anyone?), people are going to prison.

GM killed 124 people with faulty ignition switches[1], yet the brand still survived. It's a cost calculation: will the brand damage outweigh the benefit to the company? Sadly, human lives don't factor into that equation.

[1] http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/10/news/companies/gm-recall-ign...

Sadly, that’s a common occurrence with big automakers.

I can’t say anything about GM‘s rep in the US, but here in Europe they are not doing so well. Chevrolet was killed in 2015, and Vauxhall/Opel are doing only ok-ish. Chevy had SO many recalls in the years before they killed it.

Opel got bought back to europe by PSA the owners of Citröen and Peugeot in 2017 so they have a chance to turn it around.

No, because what you risk is associating your brand with death, rather than AD.

Uber already has a terrible reputation with everyone in the tech industry for the sexism, bullying, law breaking, and IP theft. Do they really want to be the self-driving car company with a reputation for killing people?

It doesn't take a lot for people to think "Maybe I'll take a lyft" or "Maybe I'll ban uber from London because of their safety record"[0].

They aren't going to kill the market for this - the other players not only have big incentives to make sure they look safe, but you've got a really unique problem when your biggest competitor is a company that controls access to news and which adverts your customers will see.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/01/sadiq-khan-...

It's a cynical approach, but they could be playing both angles. Take enough risks that maybe you do succeed and you can cut your costs enormously by actually having SDCs. But if you fail, you also protect yourself by taking the competition down with you.