Cruise Outsources Review of Regulatory Response

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

On Friday, Cruise confirmed that its board had hired an outside law firm and technology consultants after the California Department of Motor Vehicles suspended its driverless vehicle operations. While robotaxi services had started developing a bad reputation in the months leading up to the suspension, Cruise (owned by General Motors) only saw government action taken against it following a high-profile incident where one of its vehicles struck a pedestrian.


The details of the matter have been covered endlessly and seem to provide the company with an excuse, as reports stipulate that the victim was initially struck by another vehicle. However, the driverless car’s response in the aftermath may have made things worse — as pulling over resulted in dragging the injured pedestrian beneath the vehicles.


While publicly releasing the footage (like Uber did when one of its vehicles fatally struck a pedestrian during testing) would presumably settle the matter, only law enforcement and select journalists have been given access to the relevant videos. Cruise has instead issued some press releases detailing the event, along with some simulations that are supposed to prove that autonomous vehicles are superior in handling an emergency — with the company only needing to reexamine how vehicles are programmed to respond to this singular incident type.


According to Reuters, Cruise's board has hired law firm Quinn Emanuel to review Cruise management's responses to regulators investigating the accident that took place on October 2nd. Exponent has also been tapped as the brand’s technology consultant and has been tasked with reviewing the Cruise’s autonomous systems.


From Reuters:


GM, in a statement Friday, said "we fully support the actions that Cruise leadership is taking to ensure that it is putting safety first and building trust and credibility with government partners, regulators, and the broader community. Our commitment to Cruise with the goal of commercialization remains steadfast.”
Federal and state safety regulators are investigating a series of accidents involving driverless Cruise vehicles. California regulators suspended the company's license to operate driverless vehicles last month, saying the self-driving vehicles were a risk to the public.
California regulators said Cruise officials had misrepresented information about an accident in which a Cruise car struck a pedestrian after she had been hit by a vehicle operated by a human driver.
Federal regulators last month told Cruise they are investigating incidents in which Cruise driverless cars appeared to fail to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration had previously opened an investigation into incidents in which Cruise cars were struck from behind.


The company has already announced plans to take inventory of its operations to determine where improvements can be made. But the hiring of a legal team and technology experts makes it sound like it’s gearing up to defend itself. That’s understandable. However, one wonders about how impartial outside companies tasked with doing an assessment actually are when they’re still on the corporate payroll.


Considering that General Motors already has billions invested into Cruise and believes commercialized autonomous vehicles will eventually become a highly lucrative industry, there’s little chance of the automaker taking this suspension lying down. But this will be a slow process. Several of the government investigations pertain to incidents dating back to 2021 and don’t seem anywhere near being concluded.


[Image: General Motors]

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
2 of 5 comments
  • Voyager Voyager on Nov 07, 2023

    Look, the types of robo taxis ALL ridehailers use, are just blunt force traumas waiting to happen. CHANGE the transport mode. There comes a time that managers will ask themselves: what would AI have to say about this? Particularly since more issues need tackling simultaneously.

  • Redapple2 Redapple2 on Nov 07, 2023

    This isnt a core product for EvilGM. Building cars is the business. Robocars is 3 steps removed. Silly venture. An answer to a question nobody asked.

  • Redapple2 All this BEV investment. A bigger impact (less oil consumption) would have been made if we had made PIG UP trucks smaller since 2000 and not HUGEr. (And raised gas tax by $2-3/gallon.)
  • ChristianWimmer One of my clients is a company that is actually producing eFuels in Leipzig. Yes, they require a lot of energy to produce but this would not be an issue if Germany had nuclear energy or used the excess energy from wind and solar to produce these fuels. In such a scenario the energy losses wouldn’t really matter.Also, I am told that nations like Spain or the North African nations like Morocco or Tunisia could be ideal places to produce eFuels/Hydrogen due to their abundance of solar power. Again, the energy loses here would not matter since the energy used to produce these fuels is essentially “free”. If this path were pursued, Morocco and Tunisia could become wealthy nations and exporters of eFuels and Hydrogen. Countries with an abundance of solar or wind or hydro energy could be producing eFuels for their domestic consumption and export.Another argument which to me is irrelevant these days ist the poor thermal efficiency of ICE engines (25-35% gasoline, 40-45% diesel). One long trips with cruise control set to 130 km/h and even the occasional venture into the 180-200 km/h zone, my fully loaded (with my gear) A250 (2.0 4-cylinder 224-hp Turbo) can achieve an impressive gas mileage of 6 L / 100 km. That’s phenomenal - I am looking at six 1 liter bottles of water right now and that’s all my car needs to travel 100 km… amazing.So, I am a supporter of eFuels. I love internal combustion engines and if we want to use them in a climate neural way, then eFuels are a must. Also, to me every ICE car is way more sustainable and longer-lasting an an EV. Mazda, Toyota etc. are making the right move IMO.
  • Blueice Once you infuse governmental unit regulation & [marketing] and taxpayerfunding, one knows quite well, dat the product or service isdestine to fail; which includes battery vehicles. Just axe yourself how revolutionary have your home batterydevices become ??? I am still waiting. after three decades, for a battery shaver whichonly requires charging two or three times per year.I am glad that I do not have a plug in Frau.
  • Tassos Such a heavy breadvan on stilts, with so much HP, AND with ONLY 100 KWH Battery, I doubt if you will ever see 250 miles, let alone 300, under the best of conditions. In the winter, count on 150 miles range.And NO, it looks TERRIBLE. The only SUV that looks great is the RANGE ROVER.
  • Tassos They sure are doing the right thing in the SHORT and MEDIUM term.As for the long term, in the long run, YOU'LL ALL BE DEAD, so WHO CARES.
Next