Cruise

[Doggydogworld]

I hope this is just some PR spin. Because if that's the lesson they learned from this incident, I'm genuinely concerned.

I agree 100%. Only a moron would deploy at "safer than human" or even 2x or 5x safer. Musk used to talk about 20% safer, lol. Plaintiff's lawyers live to sue deep pockets. Awards can be 100x higher than for human drivers, so AVs must be 100x safer.

It's not a matter of humans having higher expectations for machines

It is partly a matter of expectations. No headline when a human driver hits a pedestrian.

If a human driver dragged a pedestrian under their vehicle for several yards, I would expect them to face some of the liability

I never heard one person say Cruise wasn't liable. But answer me this -- what liability did the Nissan driver who hit the woman in the first place face?

All the additional proof of safety in the aggregate does nothing to make up for causing easily preventable harm. They don't cancel each other out.

Virtually all crashes are easily preventable. A strong, independently verified safety record absolutely should matter to regulators. And juries.

Pedestrians being dragged under vehicles is not an uncommon occurrence. Why didn't Cruise have a plan in place for that type of failure?

Maybe they did. Some reports say it was detected as a side impact, not an entrapment. In most situations pulling over to the side, out of traffic, is the right approach (and city officials repeatedly chastised Cruise for blocking traffic instead of pulling over). And NTSB investigation might clarify such issues. We'll see.

Note that with "end to end" system, as Tesla claims v12 is, you can't ever really know the "why".

 

[diplomat33]

GM plans for its self-driving subsidiary Cruise to get back on U.S. roads in the next year or two but said it might take longer to win back the trust of the public.

GM plans to put totally driverless Cruise vehicles back on U.S. roads: Here's how

GM President Mark Reuss outlines plan to put Cruise vehicles back on roads and win back public trust.

www.freep.com

 

[cwerdna]

Driverless Cruise car accused of almost hitting 7-year-old, Feds probe similar incident one day prior was on local news earlier tonight.

 

[JHCCAZ]

Driverless Cruise car accused of almost hitting 7-year-old, Feds probe similar incident one day prior was on local news earlier tonight.

Just to clarify, the incident occurred last year but is being reported now.

(Gee, I wonder why we didn't see Dan O'Dowd take out a full page ad attacking GM for endangering children? Maybe because of this?)

 

[Tam]

Driverless Cruise car accused of almost hitting 7-year-old, Feds probe similar incident one day prior was on local news earlier tonight.

Thanks for the link.

It seems near misses at a cross walk that are intentionally baked in the codes.

It seems the car is programmed to be aggressive at the cross walk rather than being cautious and patient with crossing pedestrians.

Some human drivers do the same way but not to the degree that scares crossing pedestrians. Some human drivers would not wait for the pedestrians finishing the crossing and they would start slowly rolling the car. The Cruise would quickly accelerate to scare pedestrians so they could run for their lives and clear the path for the Cruise.

I might be wrong but if the boy was slow and did not run to avoid being hit by the Cruise, the Cruise would brake at the very last seconds and spare a few inches from the boy. That means the boy might not be hit then dragged for 20 feet! It's programmed to scare you so you can quickly get out of its way and not to hurt you.

Nevertheless, it's still a traffic ticket incident.

 

[cwerdna]

Nevertheless, it's still a traffic ticket incident.

Local news (including NBC Bay Area) has pointed out Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws.

 

[Tam]

Local news (including NBC Bay Area) has pointed out Driverless cars immune from traffic tickets in California under current laws.

That means Something is really wrong in this very current advanced civilization.

I would think that Humans should be smart enough to be able to write a traffic to robots by now.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Cruise denies the incident in the report happened, saying they don't have record of human encounters in that area during that period (although knowing them, it could be spin, they might have record of a car being there, but the car didn't report a human encounter).

But for the reddit video example, that just emulates how many human drivers drive. They will not wait at the stop sign until the pedestrian is fully crossed. Doing so has high likelihood of being honked at by the car behind. Instead it's expected for the car to pull forward and go behind them (although not necessarily swerving like in the video, that move is a bit more aggressive).

I doubt a ticket would necessarily be written if a driver did the same thing. California law does not require the pedestrian to be fully crossed before the car proceeds.

Do drivers have to wait for pedestrians to Cross Street?

 

[willow_hiller]

Cruise denies the incident in the report happened, saying they don't have record of human encounters in that area during that period (although knowing them, it could be spin, they might have record of a car being there, but the car didn't report a human encounter).

I hope they realize that if other diagnostic data places a vehicle of theirs there at that time and place, this denial makes it so much worse. Not only would that mean it failed to yield to a child in a cross-walk, but it also failed to recognize them as a VRU at all.

 

[stopcrazypp]

I hope they realize that if other diagnostic data places a vehicle of theirs there at that time and place, this denial makes it so much worse. Not only would that mean it failed to yield to a child in a cross-walk, but it also failed to recognize them as a VRU at all.

I guess they are hoping this doesn't go further than the pedestrians complaining. Plus if they get caught, it's not technically a false statement, just extremely misleading. They also may be saying different things to the public/the media vs regulators (a strategy they employed in the other incident). It's illegal to intentionally withhold information from regulators and mislead them, but it's not to do that to the public or media.

I just noticed it because the media does such a poor job of paraphrasing and catching caveats and qualifiers.

Here's the exerpt from the article:

As for the similar near miss reported by Retailleau, Cruise said its records show none of its driverless cars traveled through the specific intersection around the time Retailleau and his family were crossing the street.

“We have reviewed data and video in response to this complaint, but to date, we have not identified a Cruise driverless [autonomous vehicle] traveling in the locations on the dates or times provided that encountered any pedestrians,” said Cruise spokesperson Erik Moser. “We are committed to operating with safety and transparency and continue to investigate this incident.”

Notice how the paraphrasing says something different from what the Cruise statement says. The paraphrasing says Cruise said no car crossed in that area at the time, but that's not what Cruise said. Cruise said no car passed that encountered any pedestrians during that time. This allows for the possibility that Cruise did have a car passing by, just that it was not recorded as encountering pedestrians.

The stuff above is why I tend to not trust media paraphrasing and instead try to look for the original statement.

 

[Tam]

Cruise denies the incident in the report happened, saying they don't have record of human encounters in that area during that period (although knowing them, it could be spin, they might have record of a car being there, but the car didn't report a human encounter).

But for the reddit video example, that just emulates how many human drivers drive. They will not wait at the stop sign until the pedestrian is fully crossed. Doing so has high likelihood of being honked at by the car behind. Instead it's expected for the car to pull forward and go behind them (although not necessarily swerving like in the video, that move is a bit more aggressive).

I doubt a ticket would necessarily be written if a driver did the same thing. California law does not require the pedestrian to be fully crossed before the car proceeds.

Do drivers have to wait for pedestrians to Cross Street?

Still, it's unsafe, and if we allow robots to do it, bad things might happen.

This couple below is barely out of the car's path on the right, but the car already rolled when they were on the left side and the front of the car in the crosswalk.

On the other side of this intersection, 5 pedestrians were on the crosswalk in groups of 1 and 4:

The Cruise already rolled for the couple above, and now it's rolling toward this group of 5. The first lady barely cleared the left side of the car while the other 1 adult and 2 kids were directly inside the path of the car, and the last adult was entering the path of the car on the right.

This is only an example, and if this can be repeated many times, bad things are waiting to happen:

 

[stopcrazypp]

Still, it's unsafe, and if we allow robots to do it, bad things might happen.

This couple below is barely out of the car's path on the right, but the car already rolled when they were on the left side and the front of the car in the crosswalk.

On the other side of this intersection, 5 pedestrians were on the crosswalk in groups of 1 and 4:

The Cruise already rolled for the couple above, and now it's rolling toward this group of 5. The first lady barely cleared the left side of the car while the other 1 adult and 2 kids were directly inside the path of the car, and the last adult was entering the path of the car on the right.

This is only an example, and if this can be repeated many times, bad things are waiting to happen:

That's what I'm saying, the rolling is totally legal in California and done by humans all the time. Most of the time it's less aggressive (no swerving), but sometimes people do that too.

The main difference is with humans the pedestrians get an indication of if the driver can see them through eye contact. AVs don't necessarily provide that indication, although Waymo does by having the light on top show a pedestrian symbol when it is waiting for them (it doesn't look quite as yellow and solid as this, given the image is generated via spinning, but you get the idea):

 

[ThomasD]

They drive like Humans more and more each day.

 

[diplomat33]

Cruise LLC today announced it has hired experienced automotive safety leader Steve Kenner as its Chief Safety Officer. Kenner, who brings deep autonomous vehicle (AV) industry experience paired with safety engineering excellence in the automotive industry, will oversee Cruise’s safety management systems and operations, working in direct partnership with the Cruise Board of Directors. In his new role, Kenner will report to Cruise President and Chief Administrative Officer Craig Glidden.

Bio:

Kenner began his career as an engineer at General Motors and brings nearly four decades of experience in engineering and automotive safety across multiple leading U.S. automakers, including as Global Director of Automotive Safety at Ford. Most recently, he served as VP of Safety at self-driving trucking company Kodiak, where he defined the company’s safety strategy and driverless safety case. He brings deep expertise on autonomous vehicle safety standards, safety culture and regulation through his previous leadership positions at Kodiak, Apple, Uber, Locomation and Aurora. Kenner holds an MBA from Stanford University and graduated from Kettering University (formerly known as General Motors Institute) with a B.S. in mechanical engineering.

Cruise Appoints Chief Safety Officer

Cruise appoints Steve Kenner as Chief Safety Officer

getcruise.com

 

[cwerdna]

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/gms-cruise-hardware-chief-resigns-latest-exit-after-operations-suspended-2024-02-16/

 

[diplomat33]

Very good discussion with Phil Koopman on the dragging incident. He explains what happened and what failures Cruise had. Cruise had many failures before and after the collision.

 

[DanCar]

Very good discussion with Phil Koopman on the dragging incident. He explains what happened and what failures Cruise had. Cruise had many failures before and after the collision.

12 minutes into the video: Diagram of what happened.
17:30 into the video. The cruise vehicle doesn't realize that the nissan hit the pedestrian. A human would know that.
18 minutes into the video: The nissan driver after stopping takes off. Hit and run.
19:30 : Cruise vehicle should have known there was going to be an impact between pedestrian and nissan and could have avoided it. Several times during the video the expert says the cruise vehicle should have been slowing down instead of speeding up.
22 : Cruise is not modeling pedestrian impact with other vehicles.
22:30 : Not programmed with the concept of other vehicles hitting pedestrians or if it had been programming with it, the vehicle did not respond appropriately.
24:30 : Cruise called this an edge case, rare and unexpected.
25:30 : Expert : Safety is all about handling the rare events.
26 : The pedestrian is on the hood of the nissan for more than a second and then gets thrown into the path of the cruise vehicle.
26:30 : The pedestrian is thrown onto the hood of the cruise vehicle. (Dancar comment: Wow!)
27 : Front bumper collision sensor activates.
28 : Cruise knows there is something there, but doesn't know what it is.
28:30 into this youtube video : Cruise decides to pull over because of impact.
29 : Pedestrian goes under left front wheel
30 : Cruise had enough time, 3/4 of a second, if it had braked aggressively when first detected pedestrian coming into its lane to avoid hitting pedestrian. Not realistic to expect computers to react instantly.
31 : Impact was at about 16 mph.
37:30 Cruise has been criticized heavily for stopping in the middle of the lane. There is an engineering incentive to pull over.
39 : A person would have noticed that they ran over a pedestrian and would have likely gone outside of the car to inspect.
43:30 Person is trapped near rear axel. Rear tire are slipping on legs.
45 : Cruise wide angle side camera had view of pedestrians legs under the car.
50 : Limitations of machine learning (ML): Car doesn't recognize what it hasn't been trained on. ML doesn't have common sense.
50:30 : People are exceptionally good at knowing what they don't know, and stopping to check things out.
52:15 : Remote assistance new they had run over a person, but did not call 911. Categorized as minor incident.
53 : Cruise home office says that remote assistance didn't tell them there was a dragging incident. There is room for doubt based on other evidence.
54:30 : Cruise people arrived at scene. Saw blood and skin patches.

 

[Tam]

12 minutes into the video: Diagram of what happened.
17:30 into the video. The cruise vehicle doesn't realize that the nissan hit the pedestrian. A human would know that.
18 minutes into the video: The nissan driver after stopping takes off. Hit and run.
19:30 : Cruise vehicle should have known there was going to be an impact between pedestrian and nissan and could have avoided it. Several times during the video the expert says the cruise vehicle should have been slowing down instead of speeding up.
22 : Cruise is not modeling pedestrian impact with other vehicles.
22:30 : Not programmed with the concept of other vehicles hitting pedestrians or if it had been programming with it, the vehicle did not respond appropriately.
24:30 : Cruise called this an edge case, rare and unexpected.
25:30 : Expert : Safety is all about handling the rare events.
26 : The pedestrian is on the hood of the nissan for more than a second and then gets thrown into the path of the cruise vehicle.
26:30 : The pedestrian is thrown onto the hood of the cruise vehicle. (Dancar comment: Wow!)
27 : Front bumper collision sensor activates.
28 : Cruise knows there is something there, but doesn't know what it is.
28:30 into this youtube video : Cruise decides to pull over because of impact.
29 : Pedestrian goes under left front wheel
30 : Cruise had enough time, 3/4 of a second, if it had braked aggressively when first detected pedestrian coming into its lane to avoid hitting pedestrian. Not realistic to expect computers to react instantly.
31 : Impact was at about 16 mph.
37:30 Cruise has been criticized heavily for stopping in the middle of the lane. There is an engineering incentive to pull over.
39 : A person would have noticed that they ran over a pedestrian and would have likely gone outside of the car to inspect.
43:30 Person is trapped near rear axel. Rear tire are slipping on legs.
45 : Cruise wide angle side camera had view of pedestrians legs under the car.
50 : Limitations of machine learning (ML): Car doesn't recognize what it hasn't been trained on. ML doesn't have common sense.
50:30 : People are exceptionally good at knowing what they don't know, and stopping to check things out.
52:15 : Remote assistance new they had run over a person, but did not call 911. Categorized as minor incident.
53 : Cruise home office says that remote assistance didn't tell them there was a dragging incident. There is room for doubt based on other evidence.
54:30 : Cruise people arrived at scene. Saw blood and skin patches.

It sounds like it was programmed to be aggressive at a crosswalk by predicting when this female victim would get out of its path from its right to its left.

With that prediction, it kept accelerating but if it was an attentive human driver, that person would notice that the Nissan on its left decelerated with the brake lights on and then stopped at the time of collision.

It was programmed that if there's something bad on Nissan's lane, it's none of its problems so just keep accelerating because the victim didn't got back on its driving path just yet.

 

[enemji]

With that prediction, it kept accelerating but if it was an attentive human driver,

This will possibly be accomplished when we have a self learning AI in a self driving vehicle

 

[Jeff N]

It’s true that Cruise sometimes had problems with being rude and overly assertive (and plainly just a bit weird) around pedestrians in crosswalks as can be seen around the 1:30 mark in my video below from 9 months ago.

Of course, the accident with the woman being dragged under the car happened a few months later on a later software base but my impression is that the behavior around pedestrians in crosswalks never changed all that much up until the time when the accident occurred.