Notes on Cruise's Pedestrian Accident

by kaycebasques • 2 years ago

105 136 2 years ago

jstanley• 2 years ago

I found this part quite notable:

10-02, 9:29pm: accident occurs
10-03, 1:30am: AV back at Cruise facility

I don't think the police would let an ordinary driver have their car back 4 hours after they ran over a pedestrian! I think they'd keep it for some time to aid their investigation. Is Cruise treated differently here, or am I just wrong?

I'm also surprised they seem to be sharing video by starting a video call and then screen-sharing while it plays?? I'm struggling to come up with a better strategy for degrading the quality.

mschuster912• 2 years ago

I'm also surprised they seem to be sharing video by starting a video call and then screen-sharing while it plays?? I'm struggling to come up with a better strategy for degrading the quality.

It's a very effective way to prevent the video from being spread through the entire Internet faster than anyone can reasonably act.

steveBK1233• 2 years ago

Usually subjects of investigation don't get to choose the mode in which they share evidence

simondotau5• 2 years ago

Presumably the reasons why police want to retain a car in a investigation don't apply here. They know who (what) the driver was, and with the telemetry from the vehicle, they can know exactly what happened. They don't need to collect evidence to prove which human was behind the wheel. There's no point searching for drugs or alcohol. They don't need to dust for fingerprints. They don't need to confirm that damage to the vehicle corroborates eyewitness accounts about what collided where.

steveBK1233• 2 years ago

Still doesn't make any sense. NTSB doesn't let airline take custody of plane immediately.

You want time to recover data, investigate the physical condition of the aircraft/vehicle, etc.

How thorough of the job can the police do in the dark from 9:30pm-1:30am?

This completely looks like a special snowflake exception that Cruise, given its behavior afterwards, should not have had... and at this point, should not be trusted to have again.

watwut7• 2 years ago

There is rarely any doubt about who was behind the wheel and police is not collecting evidence about that. Also, alcohol and drug use is determined by breath or blood test.

Car crashes never lead to dusting for fingerprints.

mrgoldenbrown• 2 years ago

... with the telemetry from the vehicle, they can know exactly what happened.

The telemetry would be coming from Cruise, who is not a trustworthy source. This incident is a perfect example of why we shouldn't rely solely on telemetry - whether you believe they were just an innocent victim of bad internet connections or actively trying to downplay the dragging, it's clear they were not a wholly reliable source of information.

lynx238• 2 years ago

As a blind pedestrian, I am sincerely afraid of the future. The first time that I feel like innovation is putting me in danger.

aeonik2• 2 years ago

To ameliorate your fear, a practical and potentially effective solution may be wearing a retroreflector, or some sort of light-based signalling device that would make it much more clear that you should not be run over.

lynx238• 2 years ago

This remedy was already valid for normal human drivers. I am more concerned about automatic drivers not honoring the "Vertrauensgrundsatz" (principle of trust) which is a traffic law from my area whic, to my knowledge, doesnt even have a counterpart in the US. Basically, drivers learn that there are two classes of pedestrians: "normal" pedestrians, and those which basically cant be trusted. IOW, drunk or blind people. If you run over one of those, the likelihood of it being your fault rises.

simondotau5• 2 years ago

I'm confident that once driverless cars are good enough, blind pedestrians will be far safer than they ever were with drivered cars. But we're not there yet. Right now driverless cars should be banned from our roads.

Cruise and Waymo are inviting catastrophe by having their embryonic systems practising on public roads without a human in the driver's seat. None of these systems are anywhere near good enough to be let loose unmonitored. I know it's unpopular to praise Tesla here, but in my view they deserve some credit for sitting pretty at SAE L2 while everyone else seems obsessed with quickly impressing investors with a half-baked rush to L3 or L4.

watwut7• 2 years ago

once driverless cars are good enough

Sure, but that once can be still pretty far away for general conditions.

ghaff2• 2 years ago

There's the issue of whether people get complacent with sufficiently good assistive driving systems. (Many will.) Up to and including driving in circumstances they would not have otherwise trusted themselves to drive.

Of course, not that long ago, a fair number of people were looking forward to a near-future when they'd have a personal robo-taxi at their beck and call. And it's pretty clear that's not happening anytime soon.

lynx238• 2 years ago

Legislators are putting people like me at risk for the sake of innovation. And nobody cares since our demographic is so small. Its horrifying.

nzoschke• 2 years ago

It seems that Waymo has a command center where a human is monitoring the cars and can immediately issue commands.

Having taken Waymo a number of times in SF now, I have experienced this once. The car stopped and an unsolicited call from customer support came into the car to check on things.

While subjective my experience in Waymo has been positive and feels surprisingly safe.

The car drives conservatively but naturally. It shows a great understanding of other cars and people and cones from LIDAR on its HUD. It takes safe routes and picks safe side streets and alleys for pick up and drop off. There is a real-time support team watching things.

I doubt it’s ready for every city — SF is well equipped for public transportation with lots of well mapped local taxi routes and loading zones in the city.

And there will be surprises and accidents.

But it’s absolutely wild that we’ve reached this level of self driving, and it will be transformative for human kind as it continues to improve.

“Rush” is subjective. Waymo have been driving around with human drivers for years before let loose and they are still highly restricted to city limits and local routes. And I was taking design courses in self driving control systems taught by General Motors back in uni in 2005.

chefandy5• 2 years ago

I'm confident that once driverless cars are good enough, blind pedestrians will be far safer

I can’t reconcile the industry’s assertion that safety is the penultimate objective with our testing these things, uncontrolled, in densely populated urban areas.

FateOfNations3• 2 years ago

I know it's unpopular to praise Tesla here, but in my view they deserve some credit for sitting pretty at SAE L2 while everyone else seems obsessed with quickly impressing investors with a half-baked rush to L3 or L4.

My concerns with Tesla are primarily about the safety implications of how it's automation capabilities get marketed, rather than the hardware itself… I also don't "get" the obsession over the "vision only" approach, which seems like an unwarranted compromise to me.

"Tech culture" intersecting with safety critical products and services indeed needs to be reckoned with.

VBprogrammer• 2 years ago

In a hypothetical situation where these cars are deployed widely and are actually as close to perfect as we'd hope then that would be a much safer environment for you and everyone else than one in which drivers can be drunk, under the influence of drugs, tired or in too much of a rush.

The only argument is whether that's realistic.

lynx238• 2 years ago

I just don't believe the "close to perfect" story. And I know that those who died while they were not close to perfect yet really don't care that there is this hypotetical future.

sparsely3• 2 years ago

Not sure it'll make you feel better but the initial accident in this case was caused by a human driver.

FateOfNations3• 2 years ago

and on top of that, the pedestrian was crossing against a red (do not walk) light. Lots of human factors issues in this incident from all sides (driver, pedestrian, Cruise executives, regulators, media, policy makers, etc.)… The technology issues don't seem particularly profound.

peterfirefly4• 2 years ago

I know that was the official conclusion but I can't understand why -- the pedestrian walk out into the street (disrespecting the do-not-walk sign) and then paused in front of the car that hit her.

pie420• 2 years ago

you realize this whole thing was caused by a human driver hit and run, right? You have humans to fear. The less human drivers there are the safer you are

lynx238• 2 years ago

I dont trust technology unconditionally. I find it quite a stretch to conclude that everything non-human is automatically safe.

peterfirefly4• 2 years ago

Really? It seems to me it was entirely caused by the pedestrian doing not one but two stupid things: 1) crossing the street when it wasn't her turn and 2) pausing in front of the car that then hit her.

The "run" part happened afterwards and should of course be punished harshly but the "hit" part seems to be her own fault.

peterfirefly4• 2 years ago

Why? You'll get much cheaper taxi services + the cars around you will be much safer (and the laws will be changed so far fewer bad drivers will be allowed to drive).

lynx238• 2 years ago

I would happily pay extra money for a human driver. Especially because I rely on their cooperation when getting in / out. A human taxi driver will call out to me when he stops, knowing that it isn't easy to destinguish him from other cars. And when getting out, I often ask the driver for the favour of showing me the door, when I drive to a place I dont know well. These are all things a robotaxi can not do for me. Which means the service quality will go down. I dont care about prices going down if the service is also diminished.

zie• 2 years ago

Thanks for doing this danluu.com. I hope our journalists go back to being useful about sharing facts again and not just marketing like they are doing now.

theshrike79• 2 years ago

Ah, this wasn't _Tom_ Cruise, but Cruise the company =)

onetimeuse923042• 2 years ago

I think autonomous vehicles are exceptional occasion to apply similar practices to commercial airlines.

The reason it could not be done with cars is the drivers. Drivers simply cannot be held to the same standard as commercial pilots or staff.

Remove the driver from the equation and it might just be possible to replicate the process.

That assumes regulation that will require "operators" to provide truthful reporting of accidents.

ttcbj• 2 years ago

I really like the admiralcloudberg blog, which provides extensive analysis of plane crashes and the NTSB investigation that follows.

I hadn’t thought of it, but I think the idea of similar investigations for self-driving car accidents is a really great idea.

Though, one recurrent theme of that blog is that blame and persecution are generally counterproductive to understanding the accident and improving safety.

onetimeuse923042• 2 years ago

Blame and persecution are not counterproductive, they are crucial to improving safety.

It is called accountability and if nobody is accountable for anything then there is no actual motivation to get businesses and financial institutions to do anything about it.

What is counterproductive is blaming and persecuting wrong things.

The goal is to get companies to be accountable for being committed to taking this process seriously, providing honest information whenever it is needed and then to honestly implement the recommendations once the process is concluded.

We know that technical bugs happen regardless of good intentions. So we should err on the side of being lenient.

Where we should not be lenient about is simple negligence where all of the information was available and the decision was made regardless. For example, if the manufacturer knew that bolts were lying around and decided to save on the costs by being willingly blind to the fact.

And where real persecution should strictly follow is hiding information and evidence that is obviously needed to improve safety.

nunez4• 2 years ago

The reason it could not be done with cars is the drivers. Drivers simply cannot be held to the same standard as commercial pilots or staff.

They could; it would be devastating to the economy, though. I'm all for it though. Too many people get injured and die by auto every day.

TheCoelacanth• 2 years ago

Drivers can't be, but road designers and car manufacturers can and should be.

It should be unacceptable to design roads or cars in a way that increases the likelihood of injury or death and every serious injury or death should be investigated to determine if the road or car contributed to the accident.

sandworm1013• 2 years ago

This reminds me of the case discussed in the movie Bridge of Spies. There were multiple impacts. One side sees one accident, starting and the first impact and ending at the second. The other sees two distinct accidents, one impact and a second separate impact rather disconnected from the first. Crashes are messy. They are always up for interpretation. That is the reality of driving. Only in hindsight can we apply the arbitrary legal rules to allocate blame. The reality is almost always that everyone is at least partially at fault.

logifail3• 2 years ago

The reality is almost always that everyone is at least partially at fault

That seems like quite an astonishing claim.

sandworm1013• 2 years ago

But that is how it works out. In this situation the pedestrian apparently didnt follow one rule. The first car didnt follow another. And the second did something so odd that, if by a human driver, probably qualifies as negligence. Nobody has clean hands. The legal debate is about who has more or less blame, who has enough to be adjudicated reaponsable for which resulting injuries.

bryanlarsen5• 2 years ago

A typical large inquest will come up with a list of several dozen items that could have prevented or mitigated a situation, and I don't think common accidents are any different from unusual ones. Perhaps you wouldn't call all several dozen "to blame", but certainly all contributed.

skywhopper2• 2 years ago

If not “at fault”, everyone is probably doing something they could/should have done better or more safely. In this case, the pedestrian could have avoided crossing against the light, and could have continued walking rather than stopping; the Nissan could have avoided the incident by noticing the pedestrian and stopping; the Cruise could have avoided its part of the incident by having more situational awareness, and knowing that when a pedestrian is acting strangely it should probably slow down, and when a pedestrian gets hit in the next lane, it should immediately stop.

All complex systems are in “failure mode” of some sort at all times. But complex systems that work have enough wiggle room and safety mechanisms that true failure doesn’t happen until there’s some criticality of overlapping errors.

Yes, there are some failure modes that are so devastating that everyone else could have been behaving perfectly and it would have made no difference, but likely many if not most traffic accidents are the confluence of multiple failures, even if most are minor and would never cause an accident on their own.

bluGill4• 2 years ago

I have almost been in many accidents, but one of the two parties (sometimes me, something the other person - in proportion to suggest we are all average drivers) was paying enough attention to see the mistake and take evasive action to prevent it. When investigators look at accidents, often even when they can assign 100% blame to one party doing something stupid: there is still evidence that the other parties could have safely avoided the accident if they had taken the correct action.

o11c• 2 years ago

Clearly, Cruise should've trained their AI by having other vehicles hit pedestrians into them.

alexey-salmin• 2 years ago

* 10:05am: Wood and VP of Global Government Affairs Prashanthi Raman have virtual meeting with Mayor of SF's transpo advisor. Wood shows full video, "reportedly with internet connectivity issues from his home computer"; neither Wood nor Raman brings up or discusses pullover or dragging

* 10:30am: Virtual meeting with NHTSA. Wood shows full video, "again having internet connectivity issues causing video to freeze and/or black-out in key places including after initial impact" and again not bringing up or discussing pullover or dragging

* 11:05am: Cruise regulatory, legal, and systems integrity employees have pre-meeting for DMV and California Highway Patrol (CHP) briefing; Cruise team doesn't discuss pullover and dragging

* 11:30am: hybrid in-person and virtual meeting with DMV and CHP. Wood shows full video, again with internet connectivity issues and again not bringing up or discussing pullover or dragging

Internet connection issues, can happen to anyone

dpflan2• 2 years ago

Oh indeed, at least the presenter wasn’t stuck as a cat avatar. That would make the coincidental recurrence of connectivity issues even funnier, but shouldn’t the authorities have received a copy of the video, devoid of “internet connection” issues? Or was it not in legal position to demand the artifact and just have it shown over Zoom?

rsynnott4• 2 years ago

They claim the NHTSA got one. However, if, ah, connectivity issues obscure the video of the Bad Thing in the meeting, and the Bad Thing is not mentioned in the meeting, then the chances of it being noticed even if a video was sent do decline.

rsynnott4• 2 years ago

I mean, the constant connectivity problems stretch credulity just a little.

nocoiner• 2 years ago

That occurred to me as well. Also, it seemed notable that the one meeting that was not marked by connectivity problems seemed like the one with the audience least likely to have regulatory implications (SFPD/SFFD).

rsynnott4• 2 years ago

I suppose, charitably, that was the last one, so maybe they'd gotten around to complaining to the telco by that point :)

progbits• 2 years ago

Yeah I don't buy that at all, sounds like made up excuse that is hard to disprove.

But even if true, clearly the Cruise folks must have expected questions about the dragging and if none came should have wondered why. They witheld evidence, intentionally or not, but knowingly.

gwern• 2 years ago

If it was the same guy, why wouldn't he have constant connectivity problems if he has any problems? I know with my home Internet, when it's flaky, it's often flaky for days or weeks at a time. (The real question of course is why the video conferencing software was willing to drop video, why it wasn't uploaded as a file to a cloud server, why he didn't confirm they'd seen everything, and so on and so forth - but glitchy home connections are, and always have been, a fact of life.)

zelos2• 2 years ago

while a human might react to the collision at -2.9s and slow down or stop, "scene understanding" as a human might do it is non-existent in most or perhaps all AVs...

That's a good point. If you see a pedestrian hit by a car anywhere near your car, you stop, right? If you see a pedestrian walk out into the road against the lights you at least slow down and/or cover the brake pedal because who knows what they're going to do?

ddalex2• 2 years ago

I think this is a critical part of cracking self-driving cars - "scene understanding", or more accurately, identification AND MODELLING of all traffic participants. A tiger chasing a deer will identify and model what the deer will do, what the terrain is, and take appropriate decisions on how to best pursue; a good driver will do the same - e.g. understanding that a round object bouncing in the street of a residential neighborhood is a ball, and where a ball comes, a child will follow.

I also think that this feedback loop of "Model the world, take action, observe, update model" is a key component of consciousness (whereas we model ourselves!) and key to AGI. I would not be surprised that AGI comes from a self-driving car development model.

moffkalast2• 2 years ago

Maybe it's not reliable enough as-is, but seems to me that this "something odd is going on, better slow down or stop" requirement might be entirely solvable with anomaly detection. When the data is not as it normally is, take extra care. It's not that complicated and AGI is hardly required.

bryanlarsen5• 2 years ago

OTOH, this is not what people do in emergency situation; the modelling loop is just too slow. In emergencies people need to rely on reactions which are built through training and practice. A good modeller can often avoid the emergency situation (i.e. your ball example), but once in an emergency situation it's a reaction situation.

nunez4• 2 years ago

I'm guessing this is one of the things that Tesla's Dojo supercomputer combined with the billions of miles collected from their fleet is trying to solve

sparsely3• 2 years ago

Indeed, and you'd hope that AVs would do this. Notably the car which caused the initial incident didn't do this, they hit the pedestrian then drove off!

zelos2• 2 years ago

Yeah, it's not like the humans in this story were showing their best side, but AVs have to tak that kind of stupidity into account I think.

Like the fact that a cyclist on the other side of the road is a hazard to you, not because of the cyclist, but because an impatient driver stuck behind them is likely to pull out suddenly round the cyclist, forcing you to brake.

curiousgal• 2 years ago

It's all non-existent in all posters on r/IdiotsInCars.

tempaway127512• 2 years ago

I believe Tesla Autopilot tries to do "scene understanding" and model what is happening but not sure how successful it is

stickfigure2• 2 years ago

Let me introduce you to: https://www.youtube.com/@DashcamLessons

You might stop, yes. But many humans don't. That channel is mild and tends to be relatively work-safe; it doesn't take much searching youtube to find the rest.

It's hard to avoid thinking that maybe humans should never be allowed to drive automobiles.

Vecr3• 2 years ago

Properly trained, well rested, and sober humans are very, very good. If you can create an AV with a single open-source software version, entirely fixed with zero changes during the whole duration, and get it to drive 200 million miles, I'll reconsider.

SilverBirch• 2 years ago

So much to dig through here.

Wood shows full video, "reportedly with internet connectivity issues from his home computer"

There's one for the back to office lot.

wheels were moving at different speeds (because one wheel was spinning on pedestrian's leg)

Eurgh.

But in general, this is Cruise learning what traditional car companies already knew - you need to act with integrity. I don't see how senior executives at cruise could reasonably be allowed to continue to work in any safety critical industry after this.

chefandy5• 2 years ago

Well, they need to act with integrity towards safety regulators, anyway. I wouldn’t say the auto industry, broadly, has the greatest reputation for integrity.

logifail3• 2 years ago

I wouldn’t say the auto industry, broadly, has the greatest reputation for integrity

Compared with whom?

Boeing?

kjksf• 2 years ago

Volkswagen was fined over 10 billions dollars due to intentionally faking emissions tests.

Toyota just had a similar scandal where they were faking certifications tests.

Those are 2 largest car makers.

Fiat Chrysler was bribing uaw bosses to get favorable terms.

There's no integrity.

nunez4• 2 years ago

And there is plenty of history on car companies cheating on the US EPA emissions test; VW happened to be the most flagrant about it

potatolicious2• 2 years ago

"But in general, this is Cruise learning what traditional car companies already knew - you need to act with integrity"

Agreed - but also a key mantra in political and crisis communications: the coverup is what kills you. The coverup (or just the appearance of it) is far more damaging than the acute crisis itself.

nojvek• 2 years ago

We don't know what else they covered up.

They just got caught this time.

Bukhmanizer• 2 years ago

But in general, this is Cruise learning what traditional car companies already knew - you need to act with integrity

What do you mean? Cruise is owned by GM. It is a traditional car company. And also traditional car companies do sketchy things literally all the time.

sumodm2• 2 years ago

When the light turned green, the Nissan Sentra and the AV entered the intersection. Against a red light, a pedestrian entered the crosswalk on the opposite side of Market Street across from the vehicles, passed completely through the AV’s lane of travel, then stopped mid-crosswalk in front of the Nissan Sentra.

I wonder whether this flagged alarms in Cruise's systems when the pedestrian crossed in a potentially dangerous situation. These kind of 2nd and 3rd order conditions seems particularly hard to train for.

05• 2 years ago

Is there anything here to train for? The initial collision wasn't in any way Cruise vehicle's fault; but the subsequent repositioning shows their procedures and sensor coverage are lacking. Oh, and their integrity.

skywhopper2• 2 years ago

Yes, if a pedestrian is crossing against the light in front of you, you slow down even if you don’t think you’ll hit them, even if they’re already past your lane. If the pedestrian stops on the street they are crossing against the light, you slow down, even if they aren’t in your path, especially if you are aware of the vehicles around you and know the pedestrian is in the path of another nearby vehicle. If you see the vehicle in the lane next to you speeding up when you’ve noticed the pedestrian is stopped in their lane of traffic, you slow down and maybe veer away if possible. If you see that the vehicle next to you has hit a pedestrian, you immediately hit the brakes rather than wait 2.4 seconds until you’ve determined you’re going to hit that pedestrian before you decide to hit your brakes.

Those are all things an alert human driver should be ready and able to do. I would expect a quality AV system to do them better than a human, but in this case, none of those things appeared to happen. This AV decided “pedestrian is out of my lane, continue accelerating!” Only stopping when the pedestrian was right in front of the vehicle.

sumodm2• 2 years ago

Cruise isn't at fault for the collision with pedestrian, since it was a second order impact. The primary cause being Nissan Sentra and pedestrian. But could cruise avoided the impact and is this how humans react when we drive? Here is the timeline from the report.

  - AV starts moving at -9.2s, after light changes
  - Prediction output shows pedestrian path crossing AV travel lane: -7.7s
  - Pedestrian leaves AV's travel lane: -5.3s
  - Pedestrian pauses at crosswalk : -4.7s
  - Contact b/w Nissan and Pedestrian; -2.7s

chroma• 2 years ago

This sort of thing happens all the time in SF. There are a lot of crazy people in some areas of the city. If you stopped for every one of them (even the ones a lane or two away) you’d never get anywhere. Heck, I’ve had someone run in front of my vehicle, then pull out a collapsible baton and try to rob me. I pinned the throttle and they jumped out of the way.

littlestymaar• 2 years ago

10:05am: Wood and VP of Global Government Affairs Prashanthi Raman have virtual meeting with Mayor of SF's transpo advisor. Wood shows full video, "reportedly with internet connectivity issues from his home computer"; neither Wood nor Raman brings up or discusses pullover or dragging
10:30am: Virtual meeting with NHTSA. Wood shows full video, "again having internet connectivity issues causing video to freeze and/or black-out in key places including after initial impact" and again not bringing up or discussing pullover or dragging

Convenient “internet connectivity issues” indeed. Looks a lot like students willingly corrupting zip files when sending assignments in order to gain time when they couldn't finish…

sdwr• 2 years ago

Real "dog ate my homework" moment. Morally, it's more tasteful than outright denials at least.

bkandel• 2 years ago

Although, as noted above, the instructions for the narrative section of the SGO report require submitters to “[p]rovide a written description of the pre-crash, crash, and post-crash details,” some Cruise interviewees expressed their belief that the requirements were narrower. In their view, the narrative called for a description of the collision itself, and thus did not include post-collision actions like the pullover maneuver and pedestrian dragging.

speechless here

tempaway127512• 2 years ago

Stock options doing the thinking for them

nunez4• 2 years ago

Did the driver of the Sentra ever get caught? And what are the odds that the ped who was hit got an extremely nice settlement from this? I can only imagine the flooding of emails and calls they got from injury lawyers after Forbes broke the story

Also, based on how the Cruise AVs we saw in Houston perform, this was all but inevitable. They drove extremely erratically and casually drove down wrong way lanes several times.

NavinF2• 2 years ago

This article takes quite a long time to get to the accident itself:

10-02, 9:29pm: human-driven Nissan Sentra strikes pedestrian in crosswalk of 4-way intersection at 5th & Market in SF
Pedestrian entered crosswalk against a red light and "Do Not Walk" signal and then paused in Nissan's lane. Police report cited both driver and pedestrian for code violations and concluded that the driver was "most at fault"
The impact launched the pedestrian into the path of the Crusie AV
Cruise AV braked but still hit pedestrian
After coming to a complete stop, the AV moved to find a safe place to stop, known as a "'minimal risk condition' pullover maneuver (pullover maneuver) or 'secondary movement.'"
AV drove up to 7.7mph for 20 feet, dragging pedestrian with it
Nissan driver fled the scene (hit and run)

Vecr3• 2 years ago

Cruise incident response playbook outlines roles of Incident Commander, SLT, CMT as well as how to respond in the weeks after incident. Playbook was not followed, said to be "aborted" because "too manually intensive"

What? Who ran risk management for this company? If you're facing program halt you keep running the plan until you run out of money to pay your employees, and then keep running it after if you can get volunteers. If these people actually cared about AVs and safety, or even the continued existence of their company, they would work to extract every single detail that could possibly help any AV or robotics/AI company in the future, up to a very high cost for themselves. Deeply unserious.

Notes on Cruise's Pedestrian Accident

Related Stories