|
| ▲ | scarmig 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| IIRC Cruise got into the most trouble not because of the accident itself, but because it tried to hide evidence from and deceive regulators. |
| |
| ▲ | fragmede 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | "it"; Kyle Vogt, their CEO at the time, is the person that decided to do it. |
|
|
| ▲ | sagarm 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| An incident, by the way, triggered by a human driver hitting a pedestrian and knocking them into Cruise's path. That driver was never found. It's not clear what efforts, if any, were made to find them. After all the Cruise is covered in cameras. |
|
| ▲ | input_sh 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It wasn't "because of an incident", it was because they were required to submit a report about that (or any other) incident, did so, and then the security footage proved that they straight up lied in the report about that particular incident. If they just told the truth, they wouldn't lose their licence, but they couldn't even oblige by this piss-poor regulatory action in which they were required to do nothing but self-report any incident. |
| |
| ▲ | roenxi an hour ago | parent [-] | | I believe you, but that really highlights how dangerous small regulatory overheads are. One - quite reasonable - frame on what you're saying is that there was no problem with Cruise except they failed to engage with the bureaucracy properly on some relatively minor points. That sort of behaviour should be an aggravating factor if they're actually misbehaving. If they aren't, then it is poor policy to try and put them out of business over paperwork. |
|
