• TWeaK
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11 year ago

    When DMV asked for footage of that part of the incident, Cruise provided it.

    So they were a little sneaky in not presenting all the evidence up front, but they didn’t really withhold it in as bad a way as the title implies.

      • TWeaK
        link
        fedilink
        English
        01 year ago

        Yes but for that to stick there has to be a clear obligation to present everything. Frankly, I don’t think they lost their licence because of the omission, but because of what happened - this article is just trying to make the story more dramatic. Even the title subtly implies this, the licence wasn’t revoked “because” it withheld footage, but “after”.

        • @wahming@monyet.cc
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          Yes but for that to stick there has to be a clear obligation to present everything

          Anybody reasonable reading the article understands the obligation is there.

          • TWeaK
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            Yeah a reasonable person would decide that on the balance of probabilities here, but we’re talking about the process through which a licence is revoked, which needs to be more concrete.

            • @wahming@monyet.cc
              link
              fedilink
              English
              21 year ago

              The actual document from the DMV lists the omission as one of the reasons.

              During the meeting on October 3. 2023. Cruise failed to disclose that the AV executed a pullover maneuver that increased the risk of, and may have caused, further injury to a pedestrian. Cruise’s omission hinders the ability of the department to effectively and timely evaluate the safe operation of Cruise’s vehicles and puts the safety of the public at risk