Cruise Ad Insults Human Drivers, Gets Criticized

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

Last week, General Motors published an advertisement for its Cruise autonomous vehicle company in The New York Times. The marketing effort makes the claim that “humans are terrible drivers” and has subsequently been chided by former NHTSA administrator and safety advocate Joan Claybrook.

The ad in question states that human drivers cause millions of accidents each year and asserts that “Cruise driverless cars are designed to save lives.” But Claybrook and the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety are accusing GM of being overzealous with an untested product in addition to exercising some bad taste with its marketing materials. 


"Using the pain and suffering of those deaths for self-promotion of an unproven and unsafe product is unscrupulous," Claybrook said in a statement distributed by the safety group and shared by Automotive News.


Autonomous vehicle companies have been leaning on safety as their biggest selling point and there’s no shortage of lobbying efforts coming from the industry to sway regulators. But the fact remains that self-driving vehicles have under-delivered. Automakers made some lofty promises during the 2010s, with many making assurances that autonomous vehicles would be commercially viable before 2020. 


But that’s not how things panned out as we received rolling reports of programs running into issues. Meanwhile, AV companies are waging a public relations battle. Cities hosting self-driving test vehicles are starting to see residents complaining and there’s no shortage of reporting done whenever one fails to negotiate a construction zone, strikes another vehicle, panics at a stoplight, or runs over a dog. 


Of course, companies like Cruise want to focus on the fallibility of human drivers while asserting that their products will ultimately lead to safer streets. But this is the same line they fed Congress in 2016, backed by assurances that the systems would be broadly available by the mid-2000s. 


"Local leaders and regulators need to safely explore every option possible to reverse the horrific status quo on our roads, instead of blocking a critical technology with a strong safety record," a Cruise spokesperson told Automotive News. "Last year pedestrian deaths in the United States reached their highest levels in 40 years, often due to preventable human error, and the public deserves to know that there's a promising emerging technology that could help improve road safety."


From AN:


Cruise won approval to charge for its robotaxi rides in parts of San Francisco last summer and has since begun testing the service in Phoenix, Ariz., and several cities in Texas. In San Francisco, Cruise rides are currently only allowed to charge in a limited portion of the city and during daylight hours. The company has requested expansion of approval to allow for paid rides to take place anywhere in the city at any time of day. The California Public Utilities Commission is expected to vote on that request Aug. 10.
The advertisements were part of a push ahead of the vote to approve the permit, the Cruise spokesperson said.
Claybrook said Cruise's claims in the advertisement were neither "convincing" nor "credible."


"There are real-world accounts about the havoc Waymo and Cruise robotaxis have inflicted on San Francisco roadways and its citizens," Claybrook said, mentioning local officials' concerns about safety incidents with Cruise and Waymo-owned vehicles operating on public streets. "Their collective experience highlights the dangers, which have disrupted police activity, hampered firefighting and blocked local streets and intersections."


But Cruise has claimed the first million miles driven by its test vehicles boasted 54 percent fewer collisions overall than human drivers in a comparable driving environment and 73 percent fewer collisions with meaningful risk of injury.


Meanwhile, Acting NHTSA administrator Ann Carlson announced that the regulatory agency plans on publishing proposed rule changes for autonomous vehicles that would allow companies to put many more examples on the road in exchange for sharing the accumulated data with the government. It’s facing some opposition and even a campaign where activists place road cones on the hoods of vehicles to confuse and disable them


[image: Cruise]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by  subscribing to our newsletter.

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
6 of 22 comments
  • THX1136 THX1136 on Jul 19, 2023

    The GM ad, as paraphrased here, is logically inconsistent and, as such, should not be taken seriously. End of line

  • Vulpine Vulpine on Jul 19, 2023

    Huh! Wouldn't you know, I actually agree with GM for once; Humans are, on average, terrible drivers. Nearly every automotive crash is due to operator error, either during the act of driving or in the poor maintenance of that vehicle, ignoring and sometimes actively blanking Check Engine lights and other alerts. And sometimes the human causing the crash doesn't even get physically involved in the crash, typically by forcing someone to react to their idiocy, which results in some of the worst freeway crashes I've ever seen.

    • See 3 previous
    • Vulpine Vulpine on Jul 25, 2023

      @SPPPP: I see your point as well, but that's NOT the argument I was agreeing with; I was only agreeing with the statement that on average, humans are lousy drivers. We need an automated system that lets us have our personal transportation BUT... it needs to be able to achieve real-time communications with all the vehicles around it AND any metropolitan traffic management system, in order to avoid the idiot moves made on a regular basis by human drivers.


  • TheMrFreeze The American auto industry is the last large vestige of our once great industrial power...a nation like ours NEEDS industrial power of this type to survive. Case in point, at the beginning of the pandemic, when PPE and ventilators were desperately needed and our only source was China, it was the US automakers who quickly pivoted to start manufacturing them. No other industry in this country has the skill or manufacturing capabilities to do that.When you take this into consideration, plus the fact that Chinese automakers are financially supported by the CCP while US automakers function as fully free market entities, I have zero problem with a huge tariff being placed on Chinese vehicles to level the playing field. I do think, however, that the government then has the right to "remind" the Big 3 that it's now up to them to provide the affordable vehicles to fill the void the Chinese would have filled.
  • Fahrvergnugen Don't knock the Chinese so loudly. They are listening, and reading everything, keeping Naughty and Nice lists.
  • Redapple2 2026 f1 cars. Even more crappie! Tune in!F1 is crap. Garbage racing.1 must use 2 types of tires2 cant refuel3 DRS - only in certain places. in certain situations. on certain days of the week. and.... 4 same team wins 90% of races.Go IMSA !!!! or Moto GPPS- Historic Monaco races last weekend were spectacular. All 10 hr on TV.
  • Redapple2 volume meets or exceeds expectations......................... But, they always give you high annual volume to quote so they get a cheaper price. You have to tool up to that volume (costing you extra$) because if that part number reaches that volume and you cant meet it? Whao unto you. After getting burned by gm 10 yrs ago, we moved to heavy truck and agriculture products only. Steady volumes. More profits. 30 net payment. The vampire is up to 90-120 days now? Never big 3 work. Ever !
  • Tedward I was hypothetically annoyed about this until it happened to my wife. Watching her face twist into disbelieving rage once she realized that gm had sold her data to an insurance company after buying a very nice Cadillac was an eye opener though. If anyone wants a peek at the reputational damage done look at her. GM turned a manual BW purchase (and she's head over heels in love with it) into a non event as far as recos and future purchase considerations go. That's a heavy lift. I mean, she'd buy another manual BW, but there's zero talk about gm cars in general coming from her, in stark contrast to her VW love while she had her gti.
Next