4 ms·
> Two months ago, Kyle Vogt, the chief executive of Cruise, choked up as he recounted how a driver had killed a 4-year-old girl in a stroller at a San Francisco
by wolverine876 3y ago
> Two months ago, Kyle Vogt, the chief executive of Cruise, choked up as he recounted how a driver had killed a 4-year-old girl in a stroller at a San Francisco intersection. “It barely made the news,” he said, pausing to collect himself. “Sorry. I get emotional.”
...
> Cruise’s board has hired the law firm Quinn Emanuel to investigate the company’s response to the incident, including its interactions with regulators, law enforcement and the media. / The board plans to evaluate the findings and any recommended changes. Exponent, a consulting firm that evaluates complex software systems, is conducting a separate review of the crash, said two people who attended a companywide meeting at Cruise on Monday.
After the first [edit: the first performative charade, about little girl in a stroller], why should we trust the second isn't also a performative charade? What independence or credibility does some hired law firm have, that the company itself does not? How about using an independent third party?
- wmf 3y agoIndependent third parties don't work for free and if you pay them (by your logic) they're no longer independent. The best you can probably hope for is a government investigation.
- wolverine876 3y agoThere are ways to do it. Non-profits don't need payment, always, and their mission isn't profit. For example, companies have worked with environmental non-profits on internal climate change and other issues.
- raldi 3y agoCan you explain what you mean by “after the first”?
- simonw 3y agoPresumably they meant that the first paragraph they quoted looked to them like a "performative charade".
- wolverine876 3y agoYes. I'll clarify.
- raldi 3y agoWhat would it have looked like if it had been sincere?
- wolverine876 3y agoThe first thing? He wouldn't have mentioned it at all. He would discuss the benefits and costs, without this now cliche talking-point framing that they repeat incessently. See my other comment for some quick explanation of talking points.
- ciabattabread 3y agoCruise is trying to save itself from getting shut down by GM. I guess it would look slightly better for optics if the GM board hired them instead of Cruise’s board. But it’s the same money, and it’s GM’s decision at the end.
- pj_mukh 3y agoHmm? I saw it exactly the opposite. A lot of people in the autonomous driving industry are driven by exactly what Vogt describes (little girl in the stroller etc.). See also Chris Urmson of Waymo fame's TED talk, he talks about a similar motivation[1]. Its a fallacy everyone conveniently ignores. The woman the Cruise car ran over was actually first hit by a human driver who is still at-large, not a peep about him. The press kinda just accepts this as the "cost of doing business". The way I see it, Vogt sincerely believes autonomous cars will make things safer from the #2 killer of Children under 19 (outside of guns) by a wide margin [2] and therefore accelerated the rollout past what was safe. I see no evidence otherwise. [1] https://www.ted.com/talks/chris_urmson_how_a_driverless_car_sees_the_road?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/chris_urmson_how_a_driverless_car_... [2] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761
- sroussey 3y agoWe have become so desensitized to human deaths due to cars even though those numbers are higher than violent acts of terrorism et al that actually kill far fewer people each year. Many people have to be killed AT ONCE for it to be news worthy these days.
- oldgradstudent 3y agoIn the US on average, there's a fatality every ~85 million miles driven, and that's an average that includes motorcyclists without helmets, old unsafe unmaintained cars, the worst roads, and adverse weather conditions. Cruise barely drove a few million miles with new modern cars, good weather, the ability to choose optimal roads and weather, and yet it already severely injured a pedestrian. We can argue about Cruise hitting the pedestrian, but reportedly, the major injuries were caused by Cruise, after reaching a complete stop, deciding it has to clear the road, and dragging the screaming pedestrian and ending with the axle over the pedestrian.
- pj_mukh 3y agoI'm not sure why you're comparing fatality miles vs no-fatality-accident-that-cruise-didn't-cause miles (i.e. we have no idea how safe Cruise would be if there were no human drivers on the road) That's not even close to a fair comparison. We just have to admit that there isn't a fair comparison yet and everyone's just got an axe to grind.
- pests 3y ago> performative charade How is it performative? Is it not sad that a 4-year-old girl in a stroller got killed by a car? That it barely made the news? Or is that just not sad and is normal these days?
- minwcnt5 3y agoIt was a pretty huge news story actually (in SF). Kyle has a strong penchant for hyperbole.
- wolverine876 3y agoLots of sad things happen. Why is a sophisticated public communicator taking the time to tell this very self-serving story, tear up about it, etc.? It's not incidental; he prepared it. Spare me your trolling.
- pests 3y agoSorry you are so desensitized.
- icedistilled 3y agoPeople like to say self driving cars are safer than human drivers - but the human drivers that tend to do the most unsafe antics seem to be the humans that are least likely to make use of self driving cars.
- twoWhlsGud 3y agoSeeing that they're the one who, if there were more alternatives (like those generated by low-cost taxi services enabled by autonomy) would be less likely to have licenses, I don't think this follows at all...