Cruise Is Back Driving Autonomously After Pedestrian-Dragging Incident (theverge.com) 53
Cruise's autonomous vehicles have resumed operation in Phoenix, Arizona, following an incident in San Francisco last October where a driverless vehicle dragged a pedestrian. The Verge reports: Cruise spokesperson Tiffany Testo said the company is deploying only two autonomous vehicles with safety drivers behind the wheel. In addition, the company has eight manually driven vehicles in the city. Eventually, the service area will "gradually expand" to include Scottsdale, Paradise Valley, Tempe, Mesa, Gilbert, and Chandler -- "measured against predetermined safety benchmarks."
Cruise's slow return to the road is noteworthy, given the huge hurdles facing the company in the wake of the October incident. Regulators accused the company of misleading them about the nature and severity of the incident, in which a pedestrian was dragged over 20 feet by a driverless Cruise after first being struck by a hit-and-run driver.
Several top executives have since left the company, including founder and CEO Kyle Vogt, and around a quarter of employees were laid off. GM has said it will reduce its spending on Cruise. And an outside report found evidence that a culture of antagonism toward regulators contributed to many of the failings.
Cruise's slow return to the road is noteworthy, given the huge hurdles facing the company in the wake of the October incident. Regulators accused the company of misleading them about the nature and severity of the incident, in which a pedestrian was dragged over 20 feet by a driverless Cruise after first being struck by a hit-and-run driver.
Several top executives have since left the company, including founder and CEO Kyle Vogt, and around a quarter of employees were laid off. GM has said it will reduce its spending on Cruise. And an outside report found evidence that a culture of antagonism toward regulators contributed to many of the failings.
Unfair (Score:3, Insightful)
Shouldn't human drivers have been suspended pending investigation seeing as how it was a human driver that was the primary cause of the accident?
Re:Unfair (Score:5, Insightful)
May be the original human driver of the other car was suspended. Who knows.
But in the case of Cruise, not only they lied in their press conference by only showing the first part of the video, but to this day, they refuse to share the video with authorities showing the robot car restarting to drive again while the woman was still under its chassis.
Normally, refusing to share evidence with the authorities would be considered obstruction of justice and somebody would be jailed for it, but apparently, General Motors (the backer of Cruise) must have contributed enough money to all the right politicians, because no arrest have been made yet and it's been more than 3 months already.
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/25... [npr.org]
Hit and run (Score:3)
I understand that the original human driver in the accident was a hit and run. If they successfully ID'd them, which might be easy if the dashcam of the Cruise car caught the license plate, they might actually be going to prison, not just a suspended license.
That said, your citation doesn't support your assertion that Cruise either lied at the press conference, or even refused to share the video. The legal firm concluded that Cruise tried, but failed to point out the importance when technical errors happe
Re:Hit and run (Score:4, Informative)
That said, your citation doesn't support your assertion that Cruise either lied at the press conference, or...
Do you work for Cruise? What do you think this means?
"Cruise, which owns a fleet of robotaxis in San Francisco, then failed to adequately inform regulators of the self-driving vehicle's full role in the incident."
...or even refused to share the video.
I'll admit, that part has already been scrubbed from the NPR article (even the original audio is no longer playable!!)
Here are the edits:
https://wayback-api.archive.or... [archive.org]
Please back up the edits (take screenshots and download all the versions) before even the version history gets scrubbed. It's very easy for NPR to do that, they just need to change their robots.txt/sitemap.xml and the way back machine will respect it.
Also, if anyone can find the original audio version (because I can't find it), please make copies of it as well.
Re: (Score:2)
"Cruise, which owns a fleet of robotaxis in San Francisco, then failed to adequately inform regulators of the self-driving vehicle's full role in the incident."
Just what it says. That they failed to adequately inform. That's different from not only refusing to show the video, but "refusing to this day", IE that they haven't ever handed it over.
I'll admit, that part has already been scrubbed from the NPR article (even the original audio is no longer playable!!)
Okay, if the NPR scrubbed that part, see why I asked? No conspiracy with Cruise necessary. You mistook essentially asking for additional citation for a denial.
Which version should I be looking at?
Re:Hit and run (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, guess who is a major sponsor of NPR?
That's right. GM/Chevrolet (main financial backer of Cruise) sponsors NPR.
https://www.npr.org/sponsor-co... [npr.org]
No wonder most of the story has been scrubbed and watered down.
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at the NPR text, I think you just are used to publications that excessively editorialize, which NPR does not. NPR saying that it was a "scathing report" against Cruise and that the CEO and other executives have resigned and multiple agencies are still investigating is about as bad as it gets. It's up to the regulators to go further, and NPR can report that when it happens, but should not draw their own conclusions, as you seem to want them to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No. They deserve to have the decision maker(s) identified and jailed.
If I dragged a woman 20 feet in the same situation I'd already have lost my license for at least a year, hit with a huge fine, been sued in civil court for damages and likely been up on very serious criminal charges.
But "the computer did it!" so, "Oopsie, sorry! We'll investigate our robot" and case closed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The car stopped with a woman under it. Then moved again.
Yeah I think I'd get hit with a few negligence based criminal vehicular charges and if she died I'd get charged with manslaughter. I don't know if she was unconscious or screaming but if she was making noise and I moved anyway then for sure I'd be fucked.
Definition: Manslaughter is the act of killing another human being without malice. It is a general intent crime that is distinct from murder because it requires less culpability.
You don't require int
Probably less than that, actually. (Score:2)
It depends a LOT on your story, but there's every possibility that you'd get by with an excuse of "I didn't know she was stuck under my car, and I was trying to move to safety". It's not like YOU know how somebody under your car would change the handling, right?
In this case, though, it looks like the corporation didn't cooperate well enough, which caused issues.
I think that right now, "Shit happened, we didn't expect this, we're adjusting the programming to take this into account." should work for most thi
Re: (Score:2)
Until they eventually kill the child of someone important and all this street level live beta testing using random citizens as unwilling guinea pigs to boost corporate profits comes to a crashing halt. Pun intended.
Until then they can continue to commit vehicular manslaughter, give a weak excuse and weaker non-apology and be back in the road in a few mo the, no big deal, nominee gets punished.
Re: (Score:2)
And what are the odds that a child of "someone important" will be out on the street to be hit and killed?
Remember, while the injuries were made more severe, the person in this survived.
Death rate is remarkably low for these. Regular human drivers kill more on average. Remember, a human was the primary cause of this accident as well.
Re: (Score:2)
The legal firm concluded that Cruise tried, but failed to point out the importance when technical errors happened.
The legal firm is a fucking paid shill and fixer. Their rationalization about the buffering of the video doesn't make any sense. And even if you could believe their excuse for the press conference, it doesn't explain why Cruise lied to the authorities also.
And yes, the legal firm hired by Cruise over the incident absolutely lambasted it for having serious corporate culture problems.
"lambasted" is not the word I'd use.
Any four-year-old would understand that the law firm completely lied about what happened during the press conference.
The authorities may have received the video later.
You're right. I may have jumped the gun in my outrage. But why not say so, and why not reschedule a se
Re: (Score:2)
The legal firm is a fucking paid shill and fixer. Their rationalization about the buffering of the video doesn't make any sense. And even if you could believe their excuse for the press conference, it doesn't explain why Cruise lied to the authorities also.
Do you know what "lambast" and "scathing" means? They might be a paid fixer, as in "fix the problem", but they don't seem to be much of a shill, given that their report led to many resignations and such for the company. Their reporting was very negative - even if they couldn't necessarily say some things were actually deliberate or not.
Re: Unfair (Score:2)
Re: Unfair (Score:5, Informative)
You didn't click on the NPR link/podcast I provided.
The car not moving, and the woman being stuck under the car, that was part of the original narrative given at the initial press conference.
Later, it was found that the car had stopped, yes, but that it started moving again, so it could pull over to the side of the road, and it dragged the woman under its chassis another 20 feet. Again, it's in the NPR article/podcast I already provided the link to. Please just read it or listen to it. Do not simply take my word for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well as long as you're dealing with the substance of the comment and not trivial things like jargon spelling.
And you have the gaul to call them a "dumbass". Try working on the substance instead of grousing about spelling. That is, unless you have absolutely nothing else to post about, then just don't post.
Re: (Score:2)
Does the pod cast ask if a human driver would do the same? Human drivers do dumb shit constantly.
Yeah, and dumb human drivers end up in jail.
Cruise hid required information from regulators. They should go jail for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and dumb human drivers end up in jail.
It takes a truly exceptional circumstance to end up in jail. You can happily kill people on the road without getting in jail. Happens in the tripple digit times *PER DAY* in the USA.
Cruise hid required information from regulators. They should go jail for that.
Most human drivers don't offer up information about their incompetence. They don't end up in jail either.
To be clear Cruise should go fuck themselves. I'd not miss them if they were shut down. But if you or I want to achieve that then we need to find something substantial to throw the book at them. Wishful thinking or uneven app
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe because there was no restarting after driving on top of the pedestrian.
That was the lie told by Cruise. [teslarati.com] Their cars didn't get banned because of what the cars did, they got banned because they misled regulators.
Re: (Score:3)
Normally, refusing to share evidence with the authorities would be considered obstruction of justice and somebody would be jailed for it, but apparently, General Motors (the backer of Cruise) must have contributed enough money to all the right politicians, because no arrest have been made yet and it's been more than 3 months already.
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/25... [npr.org]
A company deemed Too Big To Fail, got away with some egregious shit in America? No waaaaay, dude. Never saw that arrogance coming. Nope. /s
Re: (Score:2)
Also, it should be noted that only the GM/Cruise robot cars have been suspended in California.
The Google/Waymo robot cars are still criss-crossing San Francisco just fine (without a safety driver) and they're still picking up passengers.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, it should be noted that only the GM/Cruise robot cars have been suspended in California.
The Google/Waymo robot cars are still criss-crossing San Francisco just fine (without a safety driver) and they're still picking up passengers.
Its kind of hard for human drivers to complain about safety with 30,000+ deaths a year being the autonomous benchmark. Just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't human drivers have been suspended pending investigation seeing as how it was a human driver that was the primary cause of the accident?
In civilised countries, if a human driver drags a pedestrian their license is suspended, if not permanently revoked. They can even end up with a custodial sentence if they lie about it.
Why should different standards apply to those who are in control of autonomous cars?
Re: Unfair (Score:2)
We salute you, sheethole state of AZ. Thank you for your sacrifice of your citizens before this tech rolls out nationwide! *salutes with middle finger*
big money (Score:2)
Re:big money (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup thats why humans are allowed to drive vehicles and kill one million people worldwide annually in car accidents. Over our billions of years of evolution we never went over 20 mph, why are humans given driver licenses?
Re: (Score:2)
Did he go to jail? Any other real punishment? No? I do not see the good thing you're talking about.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not even deaths and injuries can stop big money. All they have to do is promise they will be safer one day and they can get away with things that would have any of our licenses revoked for life.
Literally not a single self driving company has so far been involved in any incident which would have had their license revoked for life *in any jurisdiction*. Why are you applying a different standard to them than yourself?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and every urban center in the country has safe public transportation of some form. There's no reason for people to take the unnecessary risk of walking places when safe, sensible vehicular transportation is available.
Might want to ride that urban transportation a bit more before you assume about safety. 2AM can be unsafe for humans even if the damn car is on rails.
And we’re here talking about how an autonomous car provider barely made their way legally back onto the roadways after attempting to drag a human to their death. Perhaps dial back that safe, sensible bragging a bit. Not even Cruise’s competition is that arrogant right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Might want to ride that urban transportation a bit more before you assume about safety.
Many cities manage nice, safe late night urban transportation. I live in London and have come back late quite a few times in my time.
I mean the OP is a troll or an idiot or sarcastic, but it's impossible to tell, but "we've always been shit at public transportation" probably isn't a reason to continue to be so.
Re: (Score:2)
and every urban center in the country has safe public transportation of some form
And how are the riders of this public transportation supposed to get to their end destination once they step off the public transportation, if they can't walk on the streets where their destination actually is, and the public transportation doesn't have a stop at each and every door of every building along every route?
Yes, I get that you're trying to be clever and ironic, but you failed because you suggested something that isn't even close to possible without completely flattening cities and starting over.
In case you forgot... (Score:2)
Re: In case you forgot... (Score:2)
This is all so easy with GPT-4o. Just feed it the video stream. If the car crashed, reinforcement learning algorithm to not crash. (kidding!)
the crux (Score:2)
Cruise crews were the crux of their suspension, not the accident itself.
sorry but (Score:2)
Why do I need to risk my life and my family's life to help tech bros get rich by eliminating Uber drivers? why is this being allowed to happen on public streets?
Re: (Score:2)
Because 40,000 people (just in the USA, one million worldwide) are DYING EVERY YEAR due to human driving.
Re: (Score:2)
So we should make it 100,000? This should be tested on closed tracks and simulated cities, not acting as a taxi on public streets, you lunatic.
Re: sorry but (Score:2)
What if I told you it already was and this is the next step?
Re: sorry but (Score:2)
i would say it needs to go back into beta
Phoenix (Score:1)
Want to see how automated driving does on Detroit freeways in January with snow / ice / rain all over the place and the traffic still at 60+ mph. Automation's only advantage there would be that it won't get scared.