4 ms·

They have no reason to release it to the public. They don’t want to set a precedent. They will show the video to the regulators (CA DMV) and if they’re not happ

by ra7 3y ago

They have no reason to release it to the public. They don’t want to set a precedent. They will show the video to the regulators (CA DMV) and if they’re not happy, they will take action. It’s regulation working as intended.

fprog 3y ago
Public trust is a pretty good reason.
- ra7 3y ago
  There’s enough to establish public trust with their voluntary release of safety data and regulators closely overseeing their operations. Setting a precedent for releasing footage means fault is automatically assumed when they don’t voluntarily release it. It’s a problem if they’re not even releasing it to the regulators, but that’s not happening here.
  - causal 3y ago
    Not to mention that no matter how compelling the footage, people will argue who is at fault.
    - ra7 3y ago
      Yup. Also people using edited footage out of context for nefarious purposes. Really zero benefit for Waymo to release footage, only things to lose.
      - zone411 3y ago
        And that's exactly why regulators must compel them to release the footage immediately if they wish to continue operating on public roads.
        lolinder 3y ago
        They will release the footage to the regulators, likely without having to be asked. The regulators don't want the footage released to the general public any more than Waymo does—the last thing they need is a bunch of armchair traffic accident investigators telling them how to do their jobs.
    - zone411 3y ago
      So what? People can argue about many things, that's not a valid reason against it.
  - PeterisP 3y ago
    It's not enough, because at least for me and a few others (e.g. the neighboring comment "If the footage is not released to the public I'm going to assume it makes Waymo look bad.") being able to judge the event personally can establish much more trust than anything they do with the regulators, because we also don't necessarily fully trust the regulators and their political motivation, and want to see if we would agree with the regulators for such major cases.
    - ra7 3y ago
      Unless you’re willing to watch millions of hours video of every Waymo vehicle driving and judge them in aggregate, watching a one-off incident will tell you nothing about their safety. At that point, you might as well trust their aggregate statistics reported to the regulators because they capture everything. If you’re not an expert, it’s best to let the regulators and insurance adjusters do their job.
      - PeterisP 3y ago
        Your argument is much less effective at making me trust Waymo than the accident video could be.
        mint2 3y ago
        Esp if one considers it’s the same argument cops make when trying to suppress incriminating police shooting footage.
  - mint2 3y ago
    Sounds like the same argument bad cops claim after questionable police shootings Public trust requires building it first. As one of the first instances of a waymo crash, yes the public needs to see it. If after reading the footage in the first 99 crashes and in each time waymo’s assessment was valid, that’s when Waymo has public trust and can credibly not release every single video but only do it on a case by case basis.
    - ra7 3y ago
      How do you get to "bad cops" from here? Bad cops are "investigated" by their own units. So that analogy doesn't work. Waymo is regulated by independent agencies (CA DMV and NHTSA). They are watching the videos and assessing if Waymo is telling the truth. Their permit is pulled if they get caught lying (like Cruise). How are you and thousands of SF residents more qualified than them? Why should I take your assessment more seriously than that of the regulators?
- fortran77 3y ago
  [flagged]
- dmix 3y ago
  PR 101 is usually to say the bare minimum re bad press. And maybe release it later when it's out of the news cycle.
- shuckles 3y ago
  It’s a motivated audience in San Francisco. Data will not change their mind.
zone411 3y ago
Good, they should be forced to set a precedent.
smt88 3y ago
> They have no reason to release it to the public. The public is allowing them to borrow govt-built roads to test their products and potentially endanger the public. That's more than enough reason for Waymo to be transparent here.
- darkwizard42 3y ago
  No, the regulators (who are indirectly appointed through the public) are allowing them to use govt-built roads to test their products. They don't have a direct obligation to you or any other citizen. I'd like them to release the video, but just be clear what you want, and best not to act like it is required of them.
  - SllX 3y ago
    You are 100% correct. Waymo reports to the DMV, they do not report to you or me.
  - smt88 3y ago
    The roads belong to taxpayers, not regulators. The regulators are supposed to work for us. Anyway, I'm talking about a moral or PR obligation, not a legal one. Waymo is using roads that taxpayers pay for, and that raises the bar for transparency for them.
    - SllX 3y ago
      You would think so but no. Roads and highways belong to the State or Federal government (basically whoever built the damn thing). States and the Federal government are managed by an Elected government and their appointees, and are empowered to levy taxes. Taxpayers foot the bill, and some taxpayers are even citizens with the right to vote in elections. The whole “X belongs to the taxpayer” is crap rhetoric you and many many many Americans were raised on, but which does not accurately convey anything about your relationship with the roads and highways you use. We pay for them, we elect the people who are charged with managing the entity that does own them and employs people to build and maintain them, but we do not own them.
rsynnott 3y ago
> They have no reason to release it to the public. I mean, if it reflects positively on them, they have huge reason; they want to put as much distance between their response and Cruise's as possible, and show that they're acting in good faith. A large part of what killed Cruise was, well, either the cover-up or its employees' amazingly persistent internet connectivity problems, depending on how cynical you want to be.
- ra7 3y ago
  The positive PR is so negligible it’s not worth it. This is an incident where no one was even injured. If they want to put as much distance between themselves and Cruise, they just need to be transparent with the regulators and not play games with them.
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    Eh, if I want to be as upfront and "look how open we're being" as possible. They have a marginal basically-prototype product, in a limited market where a lot of people are already very annoyed about them, and the main competitor has just vanished in a puff of poor crisis management. They should really be leaning on demonstrating to the public that they're different.

by ra7 3y ago

fprog 3y ago

Public trust is a pretty good reason.

ra7 3y ago
There’s enough to establish public trust with their voluntary release of safety data and regulators closely overseeing their operations. Setting a precedent for releasing footage means fault is automatically assumed when they don’t voluntarily release it. It’s a problem if they’re not even releasing it to the regulators, but that’s not happening here.
- causal 3y ago
  Not to mention that no matter how compelling the footage, people will argue who is at fault.
  - ra7 3y ago
    Yup. Also people using edited footage out of context for nefarious purposes. Really zero benefit for Waymo to release footage, only things to lose.
    - zone411 3y ago
      And that's exactly why regulators must compel them to release the footage immediately if they wish to continue operating on public roads.
      - lolinder 3y ago
        They will release the footage to the regulators, likely without having to be asked. The regulators don't want the footage released to the general public any more than Waymo does—the last thing they need is a bunch of armchair traffic accident investigators telling them how to do their jobs.
  - zone411 3y ago
    So what? People can argue about many things, that's not a valid reason against it.
- PeterisP 3y ago
  It's not enough, because at least for me and a few others (e.g. the neighboring comment "If the footage is not released to the public I'm going to assume it makes Waymo look bad.") being able to judge the event personally can establish much more trust than anything they do with the regulators, because we also don't necessarily fully trust the regulators and their political motivation, and want to see if we would agree with the regulators for such major cases.
  - ra7 3y ago
    Unless you’re willing to watch millions of hours video of every Waymo vehicle driving and judge them in aggregate, watching a one-off incident will tell you nothing about their safety. At that point, you might as well trust their aggregate statistics reported to the regulators because they capture everything. If you’re not an expert, it’s best to let the regulators and insurance adjusters do their job.
    - PeterisP 3y ago
      Your argument is much less effective at making me trust Waymo than the accident video could be.
      - mint2 3y ago
        Esp if one considers it’s the same argument cops make when trying to suppress incriminating police shooting footage.
- mint2 3y ago
  Sounds like the same argument bad cops claim after questionable police shootings Public trust requires building it first. As one of the first instances of a waymo crash, yes the public needs to see it. If after reading the footage in the first 99 crashes and in each time waymo’s assessment was valid, that’s when Waymo has public trust and can credibly not release every single video but only do it on a case by case basis.
  - ra7 3y ago
    How do you get to "bad cops" from here? Bad cops are "investigated" by their own units. So that analogy doesn't work. Waymo is regulated by independent agencies (CA DMV and NHTSA). They are watching the videos and assessing if Waymo is telling the truth. Their permit is pulled if they get caught lying (like Cruise). How are you and thousands of SF residents more qualified than them? Why should I take your assessment more seriously than that of the regulators?
fortran77 3y ago
[flagged]
dmix 3y ago
PR 101 is usually to say the bare minimum re bad press. And maybe release it later when it's out of the news cycle.
shuckles 3y ago
It’s a motivated audience in San Francisco. Data will not change their mind.

zone411 3y ago

Good, they should be forced to set a precedent.

smt88 3y ago

> They have no reason to release it to the public. The public is allowing them to borrow govt-built roads to test their products and potentially endanger the public. That's more than enough reason for Waymo to be transparent here.

darkwizard42 3y ago
No, the regulators (who are indirectly appointed through the public) are allowing them to use govt-built roads to test their products. They don't have a direct obligation to you or any other citizen. I'd like them to release the video, but just be clear what you want, and best not to act like it is required of them.
- SllX 3y ago
  You are 100% correct. Waymo reports to the DMV, they do not report to you or me.
- smt88 3y ago
  The roads belong to taxpayers, not regulators. The regulators are supposed to work for us. Anyway, I'm talking about a moral or PR obligation, not a legal one. Waymo is using roads that taxpayers pay for, and that raises the bar for transparency for them.
  - SllX 3y ago
    You would think so but no. Roads and highways belong to the State or Federal government (basically whoever built the damn thing). States and the Federal government are managed by an Elected government and their appointees, and are empowered to levy taxes. Taxpayers foot the bill, and some taxpayers are even citizens with the right to vote in elections. The whole “X belongs to the taxpayer” is crap rhetoric you and many many many Americans were raised on, but which does not accurately convey anything about your relationship with the roads and highways you use. We pay for them, we elect the people who are charged with managing the entity that does own them and employs people to build and maintain them, but we do not own them.

rsynnott 3y ago

> They have no reason to release it to the public. I mean, if it reflects positively on them, they have huge reason; they want to put as much distance between their response and Cruise's as possible, and show that they're acting in good faith. A large part of what killed Cruise was, well, either the cover-up or its employees' amazingly persistent internet connectivity problems, depending on how cynical you want to be.

ra7 3y ago
The positive PR is so negligible it’s not worth it. This is an incident where no one was even injured. If they want to put as much distance between themselves and Cruise, they just need to be transparent with the regulators and not play games with them.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  Eh, if I want to be as upfront and "look how open we're being" as possible. They have a marginal basically-prototype product, in a limited market where a lot of people are already very annoyed about them, and the main competitor has just vanished in a puff of poor crisis management. They should really be leaning on demonstrating to the public that they're different.