Cruise Fined $1.5 Million For Failing To Report Robotaxi Crash Involving Pedestrian (theverge.com) 29
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said it has fined Cruise $1.5 million for failing to disclose that a pedestrian was seriously injured by one of its driverless vehicles in San Francisco last year. The Verge reports: Last October, a Cruise vehicle hit a pedestrian and then dragged her 20 feet after she was initially struck by a human driver in a hit-and-run incident. In the aftermath, Cruise disclosed that its vehicle had struck a pedestrian but omitted details about the victim being dragged. As a result, the California Department of Motor Vehicles pulled the GM-backed company's permit to operate self-driving cars in the state, and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration launched an investigation into the incident.
Today, NHTSA announced the $1.5 million penalty as part of a broader consent order with Cruise that includes additional requirements around safety and disclosure. The company submitted several "incomplete reports" under the agency's Standing General Order, which requires crash reports to be filed within a certain period of time, depending on their severity. In its first report to NHTSA, filed one day after the incident, Cruise failed to disclose "that the Cruise vehicle had dragged the pedestrian," the consent order reads. The company also filed an additional report 10 days later in which it also failed to disclose the dragging incident.
"It is vitally important for companies developing automated driving systems to prioritize safety and transparency from the start," NHTSA Deputy Administrator Sophie Shulman said. "NHTSA is using its enforcement authority to ensure operators and manufacturers comply with all legal obligations and work to protect all road users." After its permit was suspended, Cruise hired a law firm to conduct an investigation into what went wrong. The firm's report concluded that the company had tried to send a 45-second video to regulators that showed its vehicle dragging the victim but was hampered by "internet connectivity issues." Also, Cruise employees failed to point out the dragging incident in subsequent conversations with regulators.
Today, NHTSA announced the $1.5 million penalty as part of a broader consent order with Cruise that includes additional requirements around safety and disclosure. The company submitted several "incomplete reports" under the agency's Standing General Order, which requires crash reports to be filed within a certain period of time, depending on their severity. In its first report to NHTSA, filed one day after the incident, Cruise failed to disclose "that the Cruise vehicle had dragged the pedestrian," the consent order reads. The company also filed an additional report 10 days later in which it also failed to disclose the dragging incident.
"It is vitally important for companies developing automated driving systems to prioritize safety and transparency from the start," NHTSA Deputy Administrator Sophie Shulman said. "NHTSA is using its enforcement authority to ensure operators and manufacturers comply with all legal obligations and work to protect all road users." After its permit was suspended, Cruise hired a law firm to conduct an investigation into what went wrong. The firm's report concluded that the company had tried to send a 45-second video to regulators that showed its vehicle dragging the victim but was hampered by "internet connectivity issues." Also, Cruise employees failed to point out the dragging incident in subsequent conversations with regulators.
connections... (Score:3)
" Cruise hired a law firm to conduct an investigation into what went wrong. The firm's report concluded that the company had tried to send a 45-second video to regulators that showed its vehicle dragging the victim but was hampered by "internet connectivity issues."
Cruise needed to hire a law firm to diagnose a bad Internet connection? Boy that's some high-powered management right there...
Re: (Score:2)
the company had tried to send a 45-second video to regulators that showed its vehicle dragging the victim, but was hampered by "internet connectivity issues."
On whose end? What with the problems our local police force is having with FirstNet [wikipedia.org], I wouldn't be surprised if it was with the cops end. Particularly if it's run by the same goofballs.
Listening to my scanner, it's not uncommon to hear requests to "fax a copy of the report" from the precinct. Since the system is down so much. And a video from an involved party is more than they'd get from a human. It's usually, "I heard a thump. Thought it was a deer."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Lying to the public isn't a crime. The public is getting mighty full of themselves lately.
Re: connections... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: connections... (Score:1)
the market will price the risk into the asset. if your goal is to make money, a company acting dishonestly probably makes it MORE appealing, not less.
the honest companies are the gambles since they'll probably be routed out by someone more efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: connections... (Score:1)
well obviously i don't want be anywhere near one. but who even gives a shit about consumers nowadays? the investors are the ones with the money.
everyone ends up safer with more technology anyway, so who cares if you need to tell a few white lies to nosy bureaucrats or brush away a few dead or injured plebs to get there (preferably with your pockets full of cash)?
Re: connections... (Score:2)
Re: connections... (Score:1)
well, boeing isn't a startup. also i was talking about lying to unimportant people like regulators and plebs. the article in this pleb rag is merely insinuating by extrapolation that they are lying to Investors (pbut!).
but since you brought it up, sure, lying to investors is a risky gambit but it can work wonders! the ceo of boeing's apparent successor to the space flight market could testify to that (if it were not totally against his interests to do so!).
Re:connections... (Score:4)
" Cruise hired a law firm to conduct an investigation into what went wrong. The firm's report concluded that the company had tried to send a 45-second video to regulators that showed its vehicle dragging the victim but was hampered by "internet connectivity issues." Cruise needed to hire a law firm to diagnose a bad Internet connection? Boy that's some high-powered management right there...
Their dog ate the video I think.
Re: (Score:3)
" Cruise hired a law firm to conduct an investigation into what went wrong. The firm's report concluded that the company had tried to send a 45-second video to regulators that showed its vehicle dragging the victim but was hampered by "internet connectivity issues."
Cruise needed to hire a law firm to diagnose a bad Internet connection? Boy that's some high-powered management right there...
No, Cruise hired a law firm to try and find some loophole that meant they weren't at fault but this is the best they could do.
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
So you believe companies should have no requirements to disclose information about public safety incidents with experimental products to the regulators of those products, if those events are bad enough to be newsworthy?
This theory will no doubt be very popular with Boeing execs!
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Reading comprehension isn't your strong point, is it? Here is what the article said:
The company submitted several "incomplete reports" under the agency's Standing General Order, which requires crash reports to be filed within a certain period of time, depending on their severity. In its first report to NHTSA, filed one day after the incident, Cruise failed to disclose "that the Cruise vehicle had dragged the pedestrian," the consent order reads. The company also filed an additional report 10 days later in which it also failed to disclose the dragging incident.
In other words, Cruise tried to hide the fact one of their vehicles didn't stop once it hit someone, but continued on for another 20 feet. And not only didn't they report it, they did it twice. But wait, there's more!
Also, Cruise employees failed to point out the dragging incident in subsequent conversations with regulators.
So now we have three times the company failed to report the dragging of a pedestrian. That is essenitally a cover up. The fine is justified. Too bad it's not more.
Re: (Score:2)
Report it three times to the department of redundancy department at the NHTSA? It was all over the news, why should they file a report? Everyone in the world knew about it, except the NHTSA. That sounds like a problem at NHTSA, not GM. It's not a concern to you that nobody at the NHTSA reads the news?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you agree that the above argument is stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
Reading comprehension isn't your strong point, is it? Here is what the article said:
The company submitted several "incomplete reports" under the agency's Standing General Order, which requires crash reports to be filed within a certain period of time, depending on their severity. In its first report to NHTSA, filed one day after the incident, Cruise failed to disclose "that the Cruise vehicle had dragged the pedestrian," the consent order reads. The company also filed an additional report 10 days later in which it also failed to disclose the dragging incident.
In other words, Cruise tried to hide the fact one of their vehicles didn't stop once it hit someone, but continued on for another 20 feet. And not only didn't they report it, they did it twice. But wait, there's more!
Also, Cruise employees failed to point out the dragging incident in subsequent conversations with regulators.
So now we have three times the company failed to report the dragging of a pedestrian. That is essenitally a cover up. The fine is justified. Too bad it's not more.
One only needs to read the news clips from the article linked in the summary [slashdot.org]:
The video shows the victim rolling onto that vehicle's windshield and then being flung into the path of the driverless car, which stopped once it collided with the woman. According to Cruise spokesperson Hannah Lindow, the autonomous vehicle "braked aggressively to minimize the impact" but was unable to stop before rolling over the woman and coming to a halt.
[...]
It appears that once the Cruise car sensed something underneath its r
This isn't just one lie (Score:4, Insightful)
Even the summary makes clear that Cruise repeatedly lied by omission about the severity of this particular collision with a pedestrian. Several other "incomplete reports" are also mentioned. Does any sensible person doubt that these, too, likely omit details that would cast Cruise in an unfavourable light?
None of this is going to change until corporate executives start paying a real price for their law-breaking. Jail time for board members and laws blocking dividends to shareholders and payment of executive bonuses in the event of criminal activity should be the ground floor.
Save lives (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's really hard to believe that automated driving is being developed to "save lives" while these companies are so motivated to hide the accidents.
I've long thought that the devices to create automated cars would be better employed on cars as an adjunct to old fashioned meatbag drivers. I have anti collision warning and braking, pedestrian braking - helps with deer as well. Lane assist, and it gives me hell if I try to use it hand free. Which lane assist just ping-pongs back and forth in that case anyhow, so not good for autodriving. adjacent lane warnings that get your attention big time if you try to change lanes with a car in them right nearby.
O
Re:Save lives (Score:4, Insightful)
They definitely aren't "being developed to save lives". That's a desired side-effect. But they are being developed to earn money. This leads to misaligned incentives.
Re: (Score:3)
If I recall this accident, the Cruise vehicle reacted faster than a human would have. Cruise should have reported this, but it wasn't the automated car's fault. An ordinary vehicle hit the pedestrian, who rolled over that car and fell right in front of the Cruise vehicle. If the Cruise vehicle had been a human-driven one, it would have reacted slower and dragged the pedestrian farther.
Look, cars are incredibly dangerous. Self-driving cars are not perfect, but the best ones seem better than human drivers
Re: status quo (Score:1)
also if the "victim" had been in a car, this would not have happened at all. what happened to personal responsibility?
internal actuarial (Score:2)
Sir, the math is clear, we need to keep dragged pedestrians per year to less than one.