Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

First AV Lawsuit--Motorcyclist VS GM Cruise AV

With current blames from both sides, who would you assign faults?

  • GM Cruise AV of course

    Votes: 1 7.1%
  • Motorcyclist of course

    Votes: 10 71.4%
  • No one is at fault of course!

    Votes: 1 7.1%
  • Other--see discussion

    Votes: 2 14.3%

  • Total voters
    14
This site may earn commission on affiliate links.

Tam

Well-Known Member
Nov 25, 2012
13,306
12,350
California
GM sued over self-driving car crash with motorcyclist

This is what I understand of the event:

Cruise Autonomous Vehicle was driving at 12 MPH.

Motorcyclist was driving at 17 MPH with lane California-legal lane-sharing practice.

Cruise Autonomous Vehicle was moving to the next lane in the left.

Motorcyclist saw that: The lane would be clear so he could have the whole lane for himself so he moved up to take the place of Cruise Autonomous Vehicle that's moving to the next lane.

Cruise Autonomous Vehicle aborted lane-changing and it re-centered itself to the current lane.

But the motorcyclist now was already intending to take that space of the current lane.

Motorcyclist claimed Cruise Autonomous Vehicle knocked him down to the ground at that time but

Cruise Autonomous Vehicle claimed that Motorcyclist "glanced the side of the Cruise … wobbled, and fell over."

So if Motorcyclist's version is true that Cruise hit him then what happened to all the sensors to avoid hitting him? May be the system is good at front but not so good on sides?

If Cruise Autonomous Vehicle's version is true then there's nothing anyone can do because the motorcyclist was aiming and successfully hit the Cruise!

I hope Tesla will have 360 degree video recordings to confirm who hit who in a similar incidence!

We'll know soon enough who's fault it is if GM Cruise Autonomous Vehicle has LIDAR as well as video recordings!
 
I think that if the motorcyclist started to occupy the lane that the cruise was leaving before the cruise had fully left the lane than he is at fault. Whether it was an autonomous vehicle or someone driving manually if I start a lane change and then need to abort I don’t expect to find someone in the lane I still occupy.
 
Generalities:
If you are >50% in the new lane, returning to original lane should invoke the same level of caution as the initial lane change.
(Really, should always check for things before altering position/ direction)

Vote: depends if car had fully vacated lane or not. If still in lane, cycle should not attempt to assume possession of the space.
 
Car needs to be aware of it's surroundings. Car doesn't own that lane. It needed to verify no one moved into it's vacated space even if it didn't fully vacate California allows motorcycles to occupy partial lanes. If in moved over it needed to recheck that space and it clearly failed to do so adequately. Both at fault. Each bears their own damages.
 
...depends if car had fully vacated lane or not...

San Francisco Police Department citation: "…the motorcyclist was determined to be at fault for attempting to overtake and pass another vehicle on the right under conditions that did not permit that movement in safety…"

So, legally, the motorcyclist is at fault. However, for the sake of Autonomous Vehicle progress, were all the sensors and programming competent enough to detect and plot a projected path of the motorcyclist on its right side and thus should have avoided the collision?

It's just like the current technology is good enough to avoid a collision on a green light when it detects a speeding car at some distance on the cross traffic car from the left and it would project that car would definitely run the red light and thus, it would not allow its car to collide with the cross traffic car nor would it allow that cross traffic car hit it (because it controls its own speed with brakes and acceleration).
 
  • Like
Reactions: McRat
San Francisco Police Department citation: "…the motorcyclist was determined to be at fault for attempting to overtake and pass another vehicle on the right under conditions that did not permit that movement in safety…"

So, legally, the motorcyclist is at fault. However, for the sake of Autonomous Vehicle progress, were all the sensors and programming competent enough to detect and plot a projected path of the motorcyclist on its right side and thus should have avoided the collision?

It's just like the current technology is good enough to avoid a collision on a green light when it detects a speeding car at some distance on the cross traffic car from the left and it would project that car would definitely run the red light and thus, it would not allow its car to collide with the cross traffic car nor would it allow that cross traffic car hit it (because it controls its own speed with brakes and acceleration).

Yeah, likely on the cycle. Don't trust other driver's to do what they indicated they are going to. Like signalling a right turn then canceling once moving and going straight.

Cycle was lane splitting center and right lanes at 5 MPH faster than traffic (17 MPH), car started move to the left, cycle anticipated free lane and moved to the left also, car moved back and contact resulted.
More data would be helpful.

Was the point of contact the rear of the car or the side of the car?

Was the location of the collision the middle of the lane or the side?

The write-up sounds very spinny. Car tried to abort lane change, it was going 12MPH, how hard is it to straighten out? Does make it sound like cycle was continuing its maneuver even as the car was recentering.
 
...Was the point of contact the rear of the car or the side of the car?...

Cruise Autonomous Vehicle claimed that Motorcyclist "glanced the side of the Cruise … wobbled, and fell over."

I don't think there's any issue about where the point of collision was: the right side of the Cruise, not front, not rear.

The court has figure out who's fault despite of police report cited that it was the motorcyclist's.

The lawsuit said Cruise hit motorcyclist.

Cruise said the reverse: motorcyclist "glanced" the Cruise.
 
  • Helpful
Reactions: mongo
Cops already pinned blame on the MC rider. It sounds like he was trying to go from splitting lanes 2/3 to splitting lanes 1/2 when the Bolt failed to complete it's left lane change and returned to it's center lane position. I base this on the fact the MC was traveling faster than the Bolt.

Lane splitting can be done safely, but always split the 1/2 if you're going to split. Splitting the 2/3 or higher is asking for trouble.

That being said, GM is a lawsuit magnet. Especially in SF, I doubt GM will win this one. True fault has little bearing on outcome.

LANES:

1|2|3|4
 
Last edited:
Cops already pinned blame on the MC rider. It sounds like he was trying to go from splitting lanes 2/3 to splitting lanes 1/2 when the Bolt failed to complete it's left lane change and returned to it's center lane position. I base this on the fact the MC was traveling faster than the Bolt.

Lane splitting can be done safely, but always split the 1/2 if you're going to split. Splitting the 2/3 or higher is asking for trouble.

That being said, GM is a lawsuit magnet. Especially in SF, I doubt GM will win this one. True fault has little bearing on outcome.

LANES:

1|2|3|4

I though rider went from splitting to being centered in a lane. (But I'm failing at reading comprehension tonight)

Nilsson, who had been riding between two lanes in a legal-in-California practice known as lane-splitting, 'moved into the center lane, glanced the side of the Cruise … wobbled, and fell over.'"
 
I though rider went from splitting to being centered in a lane. (But I'm failing at reading comprehension tonight)

That would assume his intention was to ride dead center in a lane traveling faster than the cars. You lane split to pass cars. You can't normally pass through their rear bumper, hence I'd venture he was crossing toward the 1/2 split when he clipped the car in the center lane.

I've seen other riders do that. It's not bright. Split or don't split, don't zig-zag.

GM will most likely pay about $10-20k, the rider will get about $5-7k from it.
 
Last edited:
  • Helpful
Reactions: mongo
That would assume his intention was to ride dead center in a lane traveling faster than the cars. You lane split to pass cars. You can't normally pass through their rear bumper, hence I'd venture he was crossing toward the 1/2 split when he clipped the car in the center lane.

I've seen other riders do that. It's not bright. Split or don't split, don't zig-zag.

GM will most likely pay about $10-20k, the rider will get about $5-7k from it.

Yeah, that didn't make sense to me why MC would get in a lane if they were going 5 over traffic. If they were headed to 1-2 then the car may have shifted back in behind MC's peripheral vision. Along with the difficulty with avoiding the collision, MC being in continuous right to left movement.
 
Yeah, that didn't make sense to me why MC would get in a lane if they were going 5 over traffic. If they were headed to 1-2 then the car may have shifted back in behind MC's peripheral vision. Along with the difficulty with avoiding the collision, MC being in continuous right to left movement.

What kills me is when I'm splitting the 1-2 and a joker pulls that move. Guess who he pops right in front of without even knowing I'm coming? And I often don't see him in the 2-3 because I have more important things to focus on when splitting. Often it's completely impossible to see a 2-3 splitter even if I wanted to, until they try to ram or block me.

To make things worse, when he splits the 2-3, sometimes lane 2 drives will move over to give butthead some more room (they usually need it) which can pinch riders riding normally between the 1-2.
 
Lane splitting is moronic. I am shocked that the number of motorcycle accidents isn’t higher in California as a result.

That said, I’ll hold off on judgement of the cause of this accident until we see all the gathered evidence.
 
Lane splitting is moronic. I am shocked that the number of motorcycle accidents isn’t higher in California as a result.

That said, I’ll hold off on judgement of the cause of this accident until we see all the gathered evidence.

I think of one person in a car in nice weather in the same way you think of motorcycles. 70 mpg is what both my current street-legal bikes get at 65mph. They don't damage the road, they have emissions controls, they reduce congestion, take up less parking, can get out of the way of emergency responders, and other benefits as well. The solo car just allows you to put on makeup while texting and eating, which probably is moronic to begin with.

The accident rate hasn't changed due to lane-splitting wording in the CVC because we've always done it and so do the cops. It's never been illegal. Finally they made it formally legal. Accidents splitting are more rare than city street accidents. 90% of V2V accidents that involve a MC/Bike/Pedestrian are auto drivers behaving badly.

If you get killed on the road in a V2V crash, the odds of it being another car are over 99%. Don't fear the MC, fear your own textphone. You want people to ignore their surroundings while driving, and you got your wish. Many of us thought that was the world's most stupid modern decision, to allow typing and reading a computer screen while driving, but here we are.

BTW - What is moronic, literally, is our concept of 'accidents' in the US. If you decide not to pay attention while driving, or to drive knowing you suck at it, or drive in poor conditions without adjusting your speed downward, and you crash it's considered an Accident.

It was no accident. You knew the potential outcome like firing a gun in a random direction. The odds are slim you will kill, but it certainly is a serious risk. It was a negligent crash, and a crime. You should go to jail if you injure somebody due to careless driving. But we 'morons' assume that humans cannot actually control a car, hence the 'accident' concept.

World's Dumbest Idea Evar! Many countries don't buy into that crap.
 
Last edited:
I think of one person in a car in nice weather in the same way you think of motorcycles. 70 mpg is what both my current street-legal bikes get at 65mph. They don't damage the road, they have emissions controls, they reduce congestion, take up less parking, can get out of the way of emergency responders, and other benefits as well. The solo car just allows you to put on makeup while texting and eating, which probably is moronic to begin with.

...

I agree almost completely with your post.
MCs are much better for our roads, and can be some of the highest efficiency gas vehicles out there.
I don’t feel MCs are moronic. I do feel lane splitting, by anyone is.

What I am still fuzzy on is the fewer accidents part. When you have one class of vehicle obeying a different set of rules than the others, in the same lanes (or between them) it strikes me as an ‘accident’ Waiting to happen. Perhaps it is just because I am not used to it, but every time a MC wizzed by me, it startled me,raised my blood pressure, and put me on edge.
I would not be surprised if there were an increase in road rage incidents and/or severity on roads where this is allowed.

As for the distractions, agree completely. I never answer the phone or text when driving. Since available, my phone doesn’t even allow incoming texts while driving. Far too many people do, and unfortunately the MC drivers at more at risk than the people driving cars. I have friends who have given up their MC for this specific reason.
 
...Lane splitting can be done safely, but always split the 1/2 if you're going to split. Splitting the 2/3 or higher is asking for trouble...

LANES:

1|2|3|4

I think the accident wouldn't happen if the Motorcyclist:

1) continued to trail behind the Cruise and continued to stay behind it and waited it to complete a lane-changing maneuver or abort a lane-changing maneuver before moving up.

2) practiced lane splitting and imagined that there's a Cruise on its left and there's another car on its right regardless whether the Cruise finishing lane-changing maneuver or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mongo
From what I read, legally the blame is likely to end up squarely on the motorcyclist.

The more interesting question is if this was an average (average is a keyword) human driving, would the same accident happen?

I've seen the Cruise cars multiple times in person and there's a lot of hesitation and indecisiveness that may be typical of a novice or elderly driver. This may lead to a higher than average accident rate given the average driver is less patient with such drivers. Legally the Cruise vehicle is probably rarely at fault (hesitation and indecisiveness is not a traffic violation), but if that is true it increases the accident rate, it is an interesting conundrum. Of course it is still early in the game, I'm sure Cruise is continually improving (that is the whole point of the testing).
 
The more interesting question is if this was an average (average is a keyword) human driving, would the same accident happen?

I guess the question is whether lane-change cancellation was needed in this case because human could just floor the accelerator and complete the lane-change.

I am not sure I want an aggressive automation system as I now experiencing with Tesla Autopilot as it would love to floor the acceleration and aggressively shorten the car distance in front which would currently scare all of my passengers!
 
I guess the question is whether lane-change cancellation was needed in this case because human could just floor the accelerator and complete the lane-change.

I am not sure I want an aggressive automation system as I now experiencing with Tesla Autopilot as it would love to floor the acceleration and aggressively shorten the car distance in front which would currently scare all of my passengers!
The argument over the false braking in the other thread also had a similar theme as what I mentioned. Legally the person that rear ends a car is typically at fault for not leaving enough following distance. But if a car slams on the brakes in a urban setting it's likely to cause an accident because many drivers don't leave enough following distance in the first place.

This causes a situation where it's possible for in front never being at fault for an accident, but nevertheless increasing the accident rate.
 
245e1e.jpg