SF Examiner – CPUC judge approves $112,500 settlement with Cruise over SF accident
Editors note: First, it was not an ‘accident’ that could not have been avoided. The proper term is ‘crash’. Second, at the February hearing GM/Cruise was visibly thrilled that the fine would only be $112,500 because that is nothing compared to the billion dollars that Cruise is still burning per year. In no way does this paltry amount motivate them to do better.
See original article by Troy Wolverton at San Francisco Examiner
The California Public Utilities Commission on Thursday ordered Cruise to pay $112,500 to settle and end the agency’s inquiry into an accident last fall in which one of the company’s self-driving cars hit and dragged a pedestrian in San Francisco.
Over The City’s objection, CPUC Administrative Law Judge Robert Mason III approved Cruise’s settlement offer. The only change is that the company will pay more than the $75,000 it previously offered. The amount Cruise will have to pay is the maximum allowed by state law and what the company’s president verbally agreed to at a February hearing, he said.
Mason rejected the call by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency that CPUC conduct its own investigation into the accident, rather than relying on a report about it from San Francisco law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan that was commissioned by the company.
Going down that route would likely drag out the case for no good reason, Mason said in his ruling approving the settlement. Cruise has already admitted that it didn’t immediately give a full accounting of the accident in the immediate aftermath of the incident and has committed to more transparency in the future, he said.
“Approval of the Settlement Agreement terms will bring this dispute to a close, which will permit Commission staff to devote their resources to Cruise’s regulatory oversight rather than engage in potentially protracted litigation,” Mason said in his ruling.
City officials declined to comment on the decision.
Cruise was “gratified” by Mason’s ruling, spokeswoman Hannah Lindow said in an emailed statement.
“Over the past several months, we have taken important steps to improve our leadership, processes and culture,” Lindow said. “As we continue to make forward progress, we are committed to working collaboratively with the Commission in service of our shared goals to provide greater transparency and public safety to our communities.”
CPUC launched the inquiry in response to Cruise’s reporting on the Oct. 2 accident. In that incident, a pedestrian at the intersection of Fifth and Market streets was first hit by a human-driven car before being struck by the self-driven Cruise vehicle. After running her over, the Cruise vehicle dragged her for 20 feet before coming to a stop.
According to the Quinn Emanuel report, company representatives didn’t immediately alert city officials of their car’s role in the incident. Indeed, city officials came to that realization themselves after watching a video of the accident supplied by Cruise, according to that report.
Even so, the company didn’t give a full accounting of the incident to the CPUC — one of its two primary regulators — until Oct. 18, according to Mason’s decision.
In the wake of the accident, the state Department of Motor Vehicles suspended Cruise’s license to operate self-driving cars, and the CPUC revoked the company’s license to operate a commercial robotaxi service. Cruise has begun the process of trying to get its CPUC license reinstated.
If and when it begins operating in California again, Cruise will be required to notify the commission of any collisions in the state at the same time it notifies the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, as part of the settlement. For any accident that results in property damage, injury or death, the company will be required under the settlement to provide the commission with the same report it gives to DMV.
Additionally, the company will have to report monthly to the CPUC on any incidents in which one of its representatives has to retrieve a vehicle whose self-driving feature was turned off that was blocking a bike, car or transit lane or was within 200 feet of a railroad crossing.
“Cruise’s agreement to proactively provide this information relieves [CPUC] staff from the need to continually serve data requests to pinpoint any follow up inquiries regarding Cruise’s AV operations to ensure that Cruise is operating in a manner that best promotes transparency and public safety,” Mason wrote in his order.
In its objection to Cruise’s settlement offer, the SFMTA argued that such reporting was inadequate. It was unclear whether the company or CPUC will make Cruise’s reports public, City Attorney David Chiu noted in a February letter to the commission on behalf of the SFMTA. Also, under the settlement Cruise proposed and which Mason has now accepted, the company is not compelled to hand over either video or audio data to the commission, Chiu said in the letter.
“Any settlement agreement should address the standards for making complete and accurate video and audio available to the Commission,” Chiu wrote.
Mason’s decision to accept the settlement agreement comes amid growing scrutiny of autonomous vehicles. The NHTSA has launched inquiries into GM-owned Cruise, Alphabet-owned Waymo and Amazon-owned Zoox in the wake of collisions, pedestrian injuries, and reportedly erratic and unsafe driving.
In the past four months, Waymo has recalled its vehicles twice in the wake of accidents.
Such incidents have come in the wake of the CPUC’s decision in August to allow both Cruise and Waymo to offer robotaxi service throughout The City over the vocal opposition of city officials. Despite such concerns, the commission gave Waymo the green light to expand its service to the Peninsula and into Los Angeles.
Last month, the state Senate passed a bill that would have allowed cities such as San Francisco to limit the number of robotaxis on their roads and issue their operators citations and fines for moving and parking violations. But earlier this week, Sen. Dave Cortese, the bill’s author, who touted it as a public-safety measure, pulled it from the Assembly’s consideration after the Assembly Transportation Committee announced plans to strip the local-regulation provisions from the legislation.
The Examiner’s Adam Shanks contributed to this report.
See original article by Troy Wolverton at San Francisco Examiner
