> Your first and your third point are not responding to what I actually said. TBH, I didn't even fully read your third point because it's clear you're pushing

> Your first and your third point are not responding to what I actually said. TBH, I didn't even fully read your third point because it's clear you're pushing a certain perspective. I've provided evidence for all my claims, yet a single link hasn't shown up in yours. 10+ vehicles stall and require people to go out and retrieve the vehicles[0]... Nope, not a disengagement. Clearly the cars didn't have "a technology failure" they just needed to be towed back...for reasons. I guess they all ran out of gas, right? > Your second point is replying to a general quantitative statement with anecdotes. Of course there will be unusual situations. This does not support your original wrong claim that Cruise was being disingenuous. He says, while doing the exact same thing. The vast majority of recorded cases involve the cars "stalling out" in the middle of intersections, roads, or driveways. I have literally never seen evidence of a vehicle "pulling over" when confused. Please present evidence for your anecdotes. [0]: https://www.ktvu.com/news/driverless-cruise-cars-cause-traffic-jam-day-after-mass-expansion-approved-in-san-francisco https://www.ktvu.com/news/driverless-cruise-cars-cause-traff...