5 ms·

I’ve followed several of these accidents. Not one accident I saw was cruises fault. I might not have the full information.

AlotOfReading 3y ago
In a broad sense, this specific action doesn't really care whether they were Cruise's fault. This is simply opening an investigation to determine whether further action is needed. Cruise can still operate vehicles, they just have to cut down on the fleet size to reduce the incident rate. Frankly, this is a good move by the DMV. Meaningful oversight with consequences for messing up the political balance is the best tool we have to ensure industry players properly self-regulate.
- dventimi 3y ago
  There are commentors on HN who seem to care enough about fault in order to say that it's Cruise's fault. In that setting it's not irrelevant to offer a different view.
moralestapia 3y ago
You missed this, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37176393 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37176393
- dventimi 3y ago
  Missed what?
  - moralestapia 3y ago
    >Driverless Cruise car collides with SF fire truck, injuring passenger Come on man, it's the title of that article ...
    - dventimi 3y ago
      You mean the article whose contents contradicted its title? Is that the one you're referring to?
      - moralestapia 3y ago
        >Not one accident I saw was cruises fault. >Driverless Cruise car collides with SF fire truck, injuring passenger Hmm ...
        dventimi 3y ago
        Try clicking the link to the actual article. In your defense it's a bit of a moving target because the article and its headline keep getting updated. There once was a time when the headline said just what you said, that the Cruise struck the firetruck, but the body of the article said the complete opposite, that the firetruck struck the Cruise. Now, the article and its headline have been almost completely rewritten, and now (until it changes again) the headline says: "VIDEO: Driverless Cruise car struck by SF firetruck, injuring passenger, company says" Like an automobile accident between humans, there's a flurry of fingerpointing and attempts by both parties to shift blame. Like an automobile accident between humans, this is an evolving situation and determining fault is an ongoing process of investigation. That's why it's prudent not to rush to judgment and not take at face value the assertions of one of the involved parties--in this case the fire department--who has an incentive to try to get out in front of the story and shape the narrative to protect its own image (just as Cruise has that same incentive).
        moralestapia 3y ago
        "It was different when I read it", wut? I had a good laugh, thanks for that. Interestingly, the title on HN seems to match the title of the page, they probably changed it here as well amirite? :^)
        dventimi 3y ago
- konschubert 3y ago
  Was the cruise at fault in this accident?
  - moralestapia 3y ago
    Yes. Also, from that same thread seems like you missed this one as well, https://www.businessinsider.com/driverless-cruise-car-stuck-wet-concrete-san-francisco-av-robotaxi-2023-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/driverless-cruise-car-stuck-... Now you are well informed :)
    - dventimi 3y ago
      No, you're misinformed if you let this person persuade you that driving into wet cement is a mistake only a robot would make. https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/wayne/2021/08/06/driver-stuck-wet-cement-interstate-275-romulus/5517388001/ https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/wayne/2021/0...

AlotOfReading 3y ago

In a broad sense, this specific action doesn't really care whether they were Cruise's fault. This is simply opening an investigation to determine whether further action is needed. Cruise can still operate vehicles, they just have to cut down on the fleet size to reduce the incident rate. Frankly, this is a good move by the DMV. Meaningful oversight with consequences for messing up the political balance is the best tool we have to ensure industry players properly self-regulate.

dventimi 3y ago
There are commentors on HN who seem to care enough about fault in order to say that it's Cruise's fault. In that setting it's not irrelevant to offer a different view.

moralestapia 3y ago

You missed this, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37176393 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37176393

dventimi 3y ago
Missed what?
- moralestapia 3y ago
  >Driverless Cruise car collides with SF fire truck, injuring passenger Come on man, it's the title of that article ...
  - dventimi 3y ago
    You mean the article whose contents contradicted its title? Is that the one you're referring to?
    - moralestapia 3y ago
      >Not one accident I saw was cruises fault. >Driverless Cruise car collides with SF fire truck, injuring passenger Hmm ...
      - dventimi 3y ago
        Try clicking the link to the actual article. In your defense it's a bit of a moving target because the article and its headline keep getting updated. There once was a time when the headline said just what you said, that the Cruise struck the firetruck, but the body of the article said the complete opposite, that the firetruck struck the Cruise. Now, the article and its headline have been almost completely rewritten, and now (until it changes again) the headline says: "VIDEO: Driverless Cruise car struck by SF firetruck, injuring passenger, company says" Like an automobile accident between humans, there's a flurry of fingerpointing and attempts by both parties to shift blame. Like an automobile accident between humans, this is an evolving situation and determining fault is an ongoing process of investigation. That's why it's prudent not to rush to judgment and not take at face value the assertions of one of the involved parties--in this case the fire department--who has an incentive to try to get out in front of the story and shape the narrative to protect its own image (just as Cruise has that same incentive).
        moralestapia 3y ago
        "It was different when I read it", wut? I had a good laugh, thanks for that. Interestingly, the title on HN seems to match the title of the page, they probably changed it here as well amirite? :^)
        dventimi 3y ago
konschubert 3y ago
Was the cruise at fault in this accident?
- moralestapia 3y ago
  Yes. Also, from that same thread seems like you missed this one as well, https://www.businessinsider.com/driverless-cruise-car-stuck-wet-concrete-san-francisco-av-robotaxi-2023-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/driverless-cruise-car-stuck-... Now you are well informed :)
  - dventimi 3y ago
    No, you're misinformed if you let this person persuade you that driving into wet cement is a mistake only a robot would make. https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/wayne/2021/08/06/driver-stuck-wet-cement-interstate-275-romulus/5517388001/ https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/wayne/2021/0...