Cruise execs: Handling of crash ‘regrettable’
Cruise executives spoke publicly for the first time about the Oct. 2 crash that sidelined its robotaxis in San Francisco and said they regret how they responded to state regulators, who alleged a cover-up attempt.
The remarks came during a Tuesday afternoon hearing at the Van Ness Avenue headquarters of the California Public Utilities Commission, a state regulator of driverless ride-hailing services that allowed for Cruise’s unlimited expansion in the city just six months ago.
Cruise officials’ appearance at the commission’s headquarters was far less celebratory than it was during the PUC’s Aug. 10 decision. An administrative law judge, on Tuesday, grilled company executives and lawyers with questions about the severe crash that continues to haunt Cruise.
The PUC and the state Department of Motor Vehicles allege that Cruise officials did not initially disclose that a company robotaxi dragged a woman about 20 feet while trying to pull over after a collision.
A human hit-and-run driver initiated the Oct. 2 crash at Fifth and Market streets after hitting a jaywalking pedestrian, who then landed in the path of a driverless Cruise taxi. The robotaxi wrongly determined the location of the impact, leading it to attempt to pull over as the woman remained pinned underneath.
Cruise wants to settle a dispute with the commission over its response to the incident.
Last month, Cruise made public a report by third-party law firm Quinn Emanuel that found that company officials did not intentionally try to deceive regulators about the “pullover maneuver, but also didn’t explicitly disclose to them that it happened.”
The lengthy report said the company’s adversarial “us versus them” view of regulators, and the press fueled the company’s response. The report said that company employees showed regulators video footage of the crash, including the pullover attempt, the following day. But poor internet connectivity prevented them from getting a clear sense of what happened, and company employees opted to let the “video speak for itself” rather than explicitly describe the pullover attempt to regulators, according to the report.
Cruise says the commission declined an offer by the company to show the full video.
Cruise’s response to regulators drew criticism from administrative law Judge Robert M. Mason III. He likened the company to Eddie Haskell from the classic “Leave It to Beaver” sitcom — “Someone who has the facts and stands there, doesn’t provide the facts, and (then says), ‘Shame on you for not asking for them.’ ”
“Something that still bothers me is that you just never came out and said it to the commission, at meetings or in the written responses,” Mason told Cruise executives. “The fact that you are offering a video is not the same as coming out and saying that these are the facts that actually happened, and you need to be aware of it.”
Craig Glidden, Cruise’s president and chief administrative officer, offered a contrite response.
“It was regrettable,” Glidden said. “It was a mistake, and Cruise is attempting to make right the mistake. We want to get the matter settled because we want to move forward, and we want to advance the mission of bringing driverless cars that are safer to the public.”
Glidden said the company has learned from its mistakes and promised “a mosaic of responsibility and accountability for Cruise.”
The company is still reeling from the incident. It remains indefinitely suspended in California and is under investigation by at least five state and federal agencies, including the PUC and U.S. Department of Justice.
Cruise’s settlement offer to the PUC includes paying a $75,000 fine — which Mason described as a “discount” — with the promise to proactively share accident data with the commission.
Mason will propose a decision on the proceeding to commissioners within the next 60 days to either accept, reject or amend the settlement terms.