Red light for robotaxis as California suspends Cruise's license to self-drive California's Department of Motor Vehicles has rescinded GM-owned Cruise's right to roam the streets with its self-driving cars, citing public safety and accusing the biz of withholding information. "Public safety remains the California DMV's top priority, and the department's autonomous vehicle regulations provide a framework …
"I do not understand the affection California in general, and the Bay Area in particular, has for Silicon Valley snake oil salesmen."
As a life-long (with a few side trips) resident of the Bay Area, it's because the government is controlled by uneducated so-called "greens" and the ultra politically correct who scream about their own particular sound-bites, and are incapable (or unwilling) to look at the over-all big picture. The snake-oil salesmen are offering them all their own personal nirvana, complete with all the bells and whistles, if they just give in to the latest high-tech marketing bullshit du jour.
Myopic hippies, hand-wringers, namby-pambys, curtain-twitchers and NIMBYs will be the death of all of us, if we let 'em.
And no, it's not about bloody time. It never should have been allowed in the first place.
This post has been deleted by its author
Aside from politics and optics...... they should test in my neck of the Maine woods. Roads are narrow and stripes go faint from snowplow scrapes. My 2023 Toyota has "Lane Assist" and AFAICT it just jerks the steering wheel trying to go in the ditch. And this month there are a lot of leaf-peepers from away who are just LOST, driving and stopping at random. Google Maps can't be trusted b/c the first decade I was here the G-Map car never came up my road, now G is sub-contracting a guy with a bent camera.
Not to mention the last month Bay Road has been washed-out, you don't dare go that way. (It is "open" but backed-up.)
I haven't seen confirmation of this, but one news source I've seen says that Cruise initially shared crash video with the DMV that showed the Cruise car striking the pedestrian (apparently unavoidably) and stopping, but withheld additional video that showed the vehicle then starting to move again and dragging the trapped victim under the car.
It's always the coverup that gets them...
Video may show whether the pedestrian was visible to the Cruise before the alleged hit-and-run driver collided with the pedestrian.
Did the Cruise note that a pedestrian was in the road?
Did it assume that the pedestrian would not move into the path of the Cruise?
Did it 'know' the hit-and-run driver was going to collide with the pedestrian but assume that it was somebody elses problem because its own lane was clear at that point?
"Read the updated original report - seems another driver caused a "hit and run" incident, which caused the pedestrian to move into the path of the Cruise vehicle and the Cruise then moved to try and avoid the passenger."
That's exactly how it was reported in the original El Reg article.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
