Skip to main content

Cruise says it 'fell woefully short' in aftermath of October 2023 collision

Law firm report into reaction to AV incident in San Francisco finds 'mistakes in judgment'
By Adam Hill January 26, 2024 Read time: 3 mins
A Cruise vehicle in San Francisco (© Andreistanescu | Dreamstime.com)

Driverless car operator Cruise has accepted the conclusions and recommendations of a law firm's report into its response to a traffic incident on 2 October 2023, when one of its AVs dragged a female pedestrian 20 feet before coming to a stop.

The woman had been hit by another car, and was knocked into the path of the Cruise AV.

Cruise, a subsidiary of General Motors, retained law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan to conduct a review into the collision itself and Cruise’s subsequent interactions with regulators and the media.

In a statement, Cruise says: "We acknowledge that we have failed to live up to the justifiable expectations of regulators and the communities we serve. In doing so, we also fell woefully short of our own expectations. We are profoundly remorseful both for the injuries to the pedestrian, as well as for breaching the trust of our regulators, the media, and the public."

Quinn Emanuel makes clear that: "The evidence reviewed to date does not establish that Cruise leadership or employees sought to intentionally mislead or hide from regulators the details of the October 2 accident."

However, it is critical of Cruise's response in the immediate aftermath of the collision. 

Cruise played - or attempted to play - a video in various meetings with regulators which showed the AV pulling forward after the impact, resulting in the pedestrian being dragged for 20 feet.

But the report says Cruise "did not verbally point out these facts to regulators or government officials in its meetings, despite video transmission issues that impeded or prevented regulators from seeing the pullover maneuver and pedestrian dragging".

Cruise also did not immediately update information as the full facts emerged, Quinn Emanuel found. The firm "continued instead to share incomplete facts and video about the accident with the media and the public".

Quinn Emanuel adds: "The reasons for Cruise’s failings in this instance are numerous: poor leadership, mistakes in judgment, lack of coordination, an 'us versus them' mentality with regulators, and a fundamental misapprehension of Cruise’s obligations of accountability and transparency to the government and the public. Cruise must take decisive steps to address these issues in order to restore trust and credibility."

Cruise says: "We are focused on advancing our technology and earning back public trust."

It adds that it is fully cooperating with the state and federal regulatory and enforcement agencies which have opened investigations or inquiries in connection with the incident, including the California DMV, the California Public Utilities Commission, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the US Department of Justice and the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

Click here to read the full post by Cruise.

Related Content

  • June 2, 2016
    Sorting myth from reality in vehicle automation
    Bob Denaro looks beyond the hype surrounding autonomous vehicles to the challenges that still need to be overcome. Automated vehicles (AVs) may be the perfect storm – in a positive way - with the automobile manufacturers, the government and consumers all embracing the emergence of a transformational new technology and product.
  • October 22, 2018
    Grey areas: who's legally responsible for C/AVs?
    Connected and autonomous vehicles are an exciting development in the ITS sector – but amid the hype some big questions about their deployment remain unanswered, finds Ben Spencer Connected and autonomous vehicles (C/AVs) have the potential to change the way we travel - and to eliminate road fatalities. But policy makers and regulators will need to ensure user and public safety is included in future planning. The legal and insurance industries will have to catch up, too. For example, questions over who is
  • October 19, 2016
    FEMA and Dutch motorcyclists question Tesla’s type approval
    Dutch motorcyclists’ organisations Motorrijders Actie Groep (MAG), the Koninklijke Nederlandse Motorrijders Vereniging (KNMV) and Federation of European Motorcyclists’ Associations (FEMA) have written to RDW, the Netherlands Vehicle Authority, to express their concerns about the way car manufacturers implement driver assist systems. According to FEMA, crashes, studies and evasive answers to its questions FEMA indicate that these systems are not properly tested and certainly not with motorcycles. FEMA
  • December 16, 2021
    Opinion: Infrastructure Act falls short
    The Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act has been passed, garnering applause across the political spectrum – but not everyone is excited. Scott Shepard of Iomob explains his concerns, and points to some unwelcome parallels with the recent Cop26 climate conference