No surprise at all. Uber has little regard for laws, even when they are clearly in violation, and have been informed of that. They've butted heads with many a jurisdiction.
"Better to ask for forgiveness than permission" is an unofficial MO for some tech companies, but Uber has even gone beyond that, into active and unapologetic recalcitrance.
The frat boy/tech bro entitlement mentality is a firm part of the company's culture.
Are you over 60 years of age?
I'm not sure how my age is related to the actions of Uber, so you'll have to explain.
As for Uber, the travails of it, and its co-founder, and former CEO Travis Kalanick, are well-chronicled.
The company has openly flouted basic licensing and permitting laws, and resisted even when told to cease.
The way it treats its drivers has only improved through outside pressure, and it still does its best to keep them at arms length so that it doesn't have to provide the benefits that employees would receive, for people who are effectively de facto employees. Its long game is to discard those people anyway, by developing self-driving technology to power a fleet of autonomous taxis.
Also note that many of these drivers could probably ill-afford to be ticketed for a red/blue light violation that prompted the OP, and you can be sure Uber's going to deny any sort of responsibility and leave the burden on the driver.
As part of that self-driving research, it acuqi-hired and harbored one of Google's former key engineers in that field, who had no qualms bringing Google's trade secrets with him, was sued, and eventually copped a plea to that effect. He has declared bankruptcy to avoid paying a $179 million judgement against him, and says Uber is responsible for that, because management had a tacit understanding of the kind of baggage that came with him. Uber's current CEO disputes that. BTW, this quality individual was already moonlighting by starting his own competing companies while still working for Google, obviously using Google's IP.
It conducted that research by deploying those vehicles in its home city, and refused to stop, even after it was told to cease and desist by both the city and state vehicle authority. So it made of big stink of taking its ball to Arizona, where one of those vehicles killed a woman (albeit under difficult circumstances), because its safety driver was watching something on her phone and didn't react in time.
Kalanick co-founded the company and ran it like it was a frat house; ethically-challenged and male-dominated. It would be one thing if his own distasteful personal behavior, ironically caught by one of his own drivers, remained a personal matter, but that's the way he ran the company, and instilled in its culture.
As an app-based company, Uber relies on the platforms of Google and Apple to conduct business. Apple tries to protect the privacy of its users by prohibiting unnecessary location tracking. Uber has no need to know where you are, if you haven't requested a ride. I think that's a reasonable assumption that most would agree with. Yet, Uber's app continued to track, and collect that information even when no ride was summoned, in violation of Apple's rules. Even better, Uber's engineers incorporated a geofence into the app to pause that tracking if the user was in vicinity of Apple's HQ, in order to conceal its behavior. IIRC, it employed similar tactics to evade authorities in at least one European city.
The people at Apple are not stupid, and had no problems detecting this bit of deception. Apple's CEO personally summoned Kalanick to his office, and issued an ultimatum to cut that crap out, or get booted off iPhones. Personally, I think that was a slap on the wrist, and that a temporary removal from the app store, or a suspension was at least warranted to send an even stronger message, but Uber is the big fish in ride sharing, so avoiding user disruption probably forced his hand.
The investors who were shoveling billions into Uber's incinerator tired of burning money, while looking bad, nudged Kalanick out, and brought Khosrowshahi in as adult supervision. Yet it's hard to turn around of ship, and get rid of the old culture.
It might be one thing if some clueless Uber designer unfamiliar with these laws chose blue as the color of their shield, meant to be placed in the windshields of its taxis. But given Uber's nature, and track record, only a fool would give it the benefit of the doubt. It surrendered that long ago, and the character of those involved is plain to see.
Unfortunately, that has lead to companies like Bird, and Lime, whose scooters have created public nuisances in many cities, while using the same callous playbook.
As for those who make the feeble attempt at characterizing this as a stifling of innovation, or free enterprise, you've missed the target. Doing those things doesn't require breaking the law, or openly flouting it. Lyft, one of Uber's main competitors, while not perfect, has built its business without behaving in a similar fashion.
So, again, I'd like to know what my age has to do with this, how it provides any sort of counterpoint to the established facts, or excuses any of Uber's behavior.