Cruise recalls all self-driving cars after grisly accident and California ban | All 950 of the General Motors subsidiary’s autonomous cars will be taken off roads for a software update::All 950 of the General Motors subsidiary’s autonomous cars will be taken off roads for a software update

    • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      What’s acceptable?

      Every 50 million? 100 million?

      It will never be perfect, and there will never be no deaths at all, so if there is no acceptable limit you may as well ban self driving car research right now.

      The rate of pedestrians killed in 2021 was approximately 1 in every 25,000,000 miles driven manually (8000 deaths and 203 billion miles travelled collectively. Should that be the minimum target?

          • Immersive_Matthew@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            It really could be zero for pedestrians if we spent the money to ensure no human and vehicle would ever share the same space. It is less about how many humans/miles driven and more about how many humans/cost to avoid sadly.

          • Immersive_Matthew@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            It really could be zero for pedestrians if we spent the money to ensure no human and vehicle would ever share the same space. It is less about how many humans/miles driven and more about how many humans/cost to avoid sadly.

          • Immersive_Matthew@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            It really could be zero for pedestrians if we spent the money to ensure no human and vehicle would ever share the same space. It is less about how many humans/miles driven and more about how many humans/cost to avoid sadly.

        • wahming@monyet.cc
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So, no human driven cars, buses, trains, planes or anything else, then?

          • sugartits@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            And literally no people leaving the house at all.

            Have been unfortunate incidents of pedestrians accidentally striking other pedestrians which then result in heart attacks or suchlike, which then results in death.

    • Jondar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It would be interesting to see what the actual stats are for pedestrian deaths vs miles driven for non autonomous cars. I’m willing to bet autonomous cars will ultimately be safer, but it will take time to get to that point.

      Edit: Apparently, according to the transportation safety in the US article on Wikipedia, the average is 1.25 pedestrians killed per 100 million miles driven.

      • XeroxCool@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That page doesn’t exclude commercial road vehicles or interstates, so the apples to apples comparison may be much closer to the autonomous rate. A 700 mile/day truck cruising I-40 through the desert is going to skew the data as safer while I bet a casual city driver will be an order of magnitude more dangerous. Maybe the best would be stacking it against taxi and other ride-hail drivers

        Edit: Cruise didn’t even cause the incident. A human-driven car hit the pedestrian into the Cruise. This sky-is-falling reaction was started by a human doing worse.

      • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        GM was just getting it out of the way, that’s all. Nothing to see here. They operate better under pressure, see. Right? Sure they do.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      But they recalling the vehicles so clearly not.

      Unless you’re suggesting that the software update is too make the cars more efficient at killing pedestrians?

      • Baggins [he/him]@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Read what they said. That they’re doing the recall even though it’s only 1 per 10m. Implying they think that is an acceptable rate for serious injuries.

        • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ford thought 180 dead per year was acceptable when it shipped the Pinto. GM looks like a saint by comparison, fuck.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think they mean they’re not legally required to recall them. I guess the government have a limit on what they think is acceptable and that’s below the limit probably because it’s less than what human drivers achieve so it’s an improvement in safety.

    • BorgDrone@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      No they don’t which is why they suspended all vehicles pending a software update.

      Also, how does this compare to human drivers?

      The best thing about this is that now the problem has been identified the software can be fixed and this particular problem won’t happen again. If a human makes this mistake you can’t push an update to fix all human drivers.

      • Baggins [he/him]@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Emphasis goes on “even though”.

        As in “At GM we’re so benevolent that we’re doing a software update even though we think this will only kill someone every 10m miles (which we consider an acceptable murder rate for our cars)”.

        • raptir@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s equally ridiculous to say. Self driving cars just need to be better than people to be worth it, they just currently are not better than people.

          • Baggins [he/him]@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s ridiculous to think that cars shouldn’t be killing people? Well smack my ass and call me an extremist.

            • raptir@lemdro.id
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, it’s ridiculous to say that if self driving cars kill fewer people than human driven cars but still more than zero that we should not use them. That’s like saying “why use seatbelts, they’re not 100% effective.”

            • wile_e8@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Are you calling for a ban on human driven cars? They killed more than zero people yesterday! If you aren’t, you’ve accepted a human-driven vehicular homicide rate above zero.

    • agitatedpotato@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Not just GM, if you tried ro question the safety of these cars on even Lemmy before these revelations came out you would get brigaded by people claiming they were safer than humans statistically and thats all they needed to be in order to be acceptable.

      • XeroxCool@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        This incident started with a human driving their car into a pedestrian. It’s not exactly a smoking gun

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    General Motors’ Cruise autonomous vehicle unit is recalling all 950 of its cars to update software after one of them dragged a pedestrian to the side of a San Francisco street in early October and a subsequent ban by California regulators.

    The company said in documents posted by US safety regulators on Wednesday that with the updated software, Cruise vehicles will remain stationary should a similar incident occur in the future.

    The 2 October crash prompted Cruise to suspend driverless operations nationwide after California regulators found that its cars posed a danger to public safety.

    The state’s department of motor vehicles revoked the license for Cruise, which was transporting passengers without human drivers throughout San Francisco.

    In a statement on Wednesday, the GM unit said that it did the recall even though it determined that a similar crash with a risk of serious injury could happen again every 10m to 100m miles without the update.

    “As our software continues to improve, it is likely we will file additional recalls to inform both NHTSA and the public of updates to enhance safety across our fleet.”


    The original article contains 712 words, the summary contains 184 words. Saved 74%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!