Kyle Vogt, co-founder and CTO of GM Cruise, recently wrote an opinion post on Medium that argues for a new metric with regard to self-driving autonomous vehicle (AV) safety reporting.
GM Cruise, a subsidiary of General Motors, is currently working towards the creation of self-driving technology with applications towards a future AV taxi service. The company is now conducting real-world testing in San Francisco.
Like other AV technology companies, GM Cruise reports “disengagement” data to the California DMV, which in turn provides that data to the public. Disengagement is an incidence that occurs during AV testing wherein the human pilot behind the wheel is required to take over from the self-driving software.
“The data is really great for giving the public a sense of what’s happening on the roads,” Vogt writes. “Unfortunately, it has also been used by the media and others to compare technology from different AV companies or as a proxy for commercial readiness.”

GM Cruise co-founder and CTO Kyle Vogt (center) with Cruise executives Dan Ammann (right) and Dan Kan (left).
As Vogt points out, disengagement data is currently the only publicly available AV safety metric, but it fails to provide a complete picture of the technology’s readiness with regard to widespread commercial implementation.
“After extensive testing in complex urban environments, we’ve come to realize there’s a threshold of environmental complexity above which it’s nearly impossible for even a well-trained, attentive, and responsive human to avoid touching the wheel,” Vogt says.
Essentially, disengagements are not necessarily indicative of AV tech readiness, especially when considering the environment where the testing is taking place. Factors such as inclement weather, pedestrians, other drivers, and cyclists can dramatically affect disengagement rates.
In his post, the GM Cruise co-founder goes into some of the more common scenarios where disengagement occurs, including poor driving on the part of human drivers, as well as limitations of the technology itself.
Vogt reiterates that disengagements shouldn’t necessarily be ignored, but rather, further metrics should also be explored. He argues this should include hard data that the tech can outperform a human driver, plus proof of an overall positive impact with regard to safety and public health.
“This requires a) data on the true performance of human drivers and AVs in a given environment and b) an objective apples-to-apples comparison with statistically significant results,” Vogt writes. “We will deliver exactly that once our AVs are validated and ready for deployment.”
Subscribe to GM Authority for and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Source: Medium
Comments
In other words, “we’re never going to get 100% truly autonomous in our lifetimes, so we should stop keeping count today as the benchmark.”
Which is a giant retort to Google/WayMo, which is arguing the complete opposite.
Or side take here is that other companies have lower rates of disengagements because they’re not really challenging their cars per mile like Cruise is.
This is a competitive world today, we know this, GM knows this.
But lets face it, GM thinks they can hire lawyers and marketers and muddy the reality.
The reality is real tech takes time and money and real tech people, now I don’t doubt that this Kyle guy is a real tech guy, but lets be real here.
Look at what Elon is doing, what Google is doing, Amazon, and others. That is real tech !!
This scenario with GM Cruise, and GM is just another GM deal trying to tell the real customer what they want.
Customers want adaptive cruise, yesterday in the top end GM vehicles, the Denali’s and Cadillacs, etc., and GM can’t or wont even provide that, yet GM wants you to let a Cruise drive you around, WHAT !
At some point here GM really needs to step back from all the hype and address some of these issues, and quit it with the excuse and blame game, what is going on !!
Its fun to watch though, GM trying to catch up when 2-5 years behind and just blame, blame, excuse after excuse, after excuse !
And just an opinion here again !, you really think that GM Cruise, or any other, when they say or see multi trillion dollars of profit here, think that the same taxpayer governments they need to make it happen, aren’t going to want or simply need a good share of that trillion dollars !
But I’m sure all those details have been worked out by the people who haven’t even been elected yet !
This kind of stuff will take big dollars, and there is no one in the USA with big dollars any more !
Well there are a few with big dollars, but they don’t want this !
YET !
I believe this will take place when the governments where the people want it to happen make it happen, and at that time the huge stockholder profit, and dividend checks will not be written by the tax payer yet again !
This seems like another GM Ignition Switch scandal waiting to hatch.
Not really. With these Level 3 autonomous driving cars, you are required to always be at the ready. GM already has Super Cruise in the CT6 that accomplishes this with eye tracking. If you take your eyes off the road, the car will demand you focus back on the road ahead of you.
Level 4/5 autonomous is where the car is supposed to be able to drive itself during normal conditions without the driver always being at the ready. We aren’t there yet.
So just like the Cruise, endeavor, and the lack of or some might say real time progress, the CT6 is the same.
Look if GM wanted to show that somehow they really can build something with this level of tech, or even just understand how it works, they, GM would try to make it seem easy, cheap !!
Its like anything in the world – OK, look at it form the worlds prospective, look at the people in the front of safety, tech, Etc., its in their everyday life of operations.
By you saying GM has this in the, almost lowest volume, and most expensive vehicle they offer is just sad really.
Use this example, OK, something simple, flat screen tv’s, cell phones, computers, online purchasing, landing rockets backwards on a ship in the ocean, vehicles from other auto companies with standard safety systems that do not add cost , adaptive cruise systems on vehicles that don’t cost the most.
You see the people behind this stuff think it is simple, because to the real tech people it is and to somewhat prove this to the public they do it wherever possible to prove it, not by suing someone, or trying to convince someone its possible, they do it !
If GM or Cruise want to convince people or the customers they know how to do any of the things they say they are capable of, DO IT.
Starting with GM here, GM would be known for having adaptive cruise, forward breaking, automatic crash response systems on at least most of their vehicles, you know, its simple, we can do it in mass production, and we can keep you safe in our self driving vehicles !!
However at GM, with all their brilliance, hardly offer any of these systems for public safety, in the most sold vehicles on the road in the USA.
Do you know how stupid that looks in the publics eyes, especially today.
Again look at Boeing, ” trust us we can keep you safe ” if that’s true, prove it, and not by hiding behind some paid system, prove it by not crashing planes !
Just a couple of simple examples from one persons perspective !
All I know is I am sticking to what I have been saying for years. I will never bet against a person that decided he was going to Launch, land, and reuse Rockets. NASA was around for 50 years and they never even tried to do this.
Tech Companies think at a whole different level than lets say Legacy Companies.
Now how long this will take nobody knows but I feel very strong that it will happen.