Autonomous vehicle (AV) advocates tout safety as one of the technology’s greatest benefits, stating that unlike human drivers, autonomous vehicles can’t drive inebriated, tired, or distracted. In a recent advertisement, GM’s autonomous vehicle technology division, Cruise, focused on the potential safety benefits of AVs while citing car crash fatality figures. Now, however, the advertisement has been criticized by a former NHTSA administrator.
Per a report from Automotive News, Cruise recently ran a one-page ad in The New York Times and several other prominent newspapers claiming that “humans are terrible drivers,” stating that while human pilots cause millions of road accidents every year in the U.S., Cruise AVs “are designed to save lives.” The ad also includes 2022 U.S. crash fatality figures.
Now, former NHTSA administrator Joan Claybrook has come out against the new Cruise ad, saying in a statement distributed by the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety that the company was acting unethically.
“Using the pain and suffering of those deaths for self-promotion of an unproven and unsafe product is unscrupulous,” Claybrook states.
The recent Cruise advert comes at a critical time for the company as the NHTSA gears up to issue a decision as to whether or not the fully autonomous Cruise Origin robotaxi will be allowed to operate on public roads. Although Cruise already operates a fleet of autonomous-tech-upgraded Chevy Bolt EVs, Cruise Origin does not incorporate any human controls (steering wheel, mirrors, windshield wipers, etc.), and as such, the NHTSA will decide if a vehicle operated by computers is required to comply with the same safety standards as human-operated vehicles with regard to human-pilot-related equipment.
Cruise currently offers driverless rides in San Francisco, and has begun testing similar services in Phoenix and Austin. Cruise also recently celebrated 3 million driverless miles traveled. However, Claybrook cites incidents where autonomous vehicles have been involved in accidents or roadway disruptions as evidence that the technology is not ready for the public.
As GM Authority has covered previously, a Cruise passenger was hospitalized last year after a collision with an oncoming Toyota Prius, while the NHTSA opened a probe into Cruise last December following a series of crashes reported from brake timing issues. Cruise vehicles have also reportedly blocked first responders.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more GM Cruise news, GM-related political news, GM technology news, GM electric vehicle news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Comments
What a stupid ad. Who comes up with these ideas? To make a blanket statement that all humans are bad drivers is asinine. Most people take the privilege of driving seriously and do not need a nanny state to control our personal transportation.
Huh. I would have never guessed that ad was offensive. Like obviously they don’t mean every human. Just humans on average. I guess folks just get offended by everything these days.
These should be banned from public roads and relegated to closed shuttle circuits like airports and theme parks.
Claybrook says Cruise is uproven and unsafe. She’s flat out wrong – there is a huge amount of public data that proves Cruise is safe.
No system is guaranteed 100% safe – the question is what is more safe – system A, or B, or C. If system A is safter than B or C by a significant margin, it’s axiomatic – use system A. To suggest we use B or C is absurd. When I present data that shows A is safter than B or C, that’s simply making a case using facts/data. Yes, some data can be presented is a way that could be regarded as insensitive or in poor taste, but to cite broad statistics is simply stating a well-known fact – there are traffic accidents, the number of fatalties is high, and broader use of Cruise could reduce fatalities.
Autonomy is coming. It will get here sooner than most believe, and be far safter than a typical human driver on a typical day. On a Saturday night, 11:00 PM, Cruise will be far safer than a lot of drivers out on the road. Cruise will save lives. I could see GM Cruise offering a deal that if people want a “night out”, and use Cruise before 10:00 PM, then after 10:00 Cruise rides would be free. That will save lives.
Using Cruise will save lives. Let’s hear people complain that’s in poor taste. Or inaccurate.
Get over it, Jill Claybrook. Advocate for a system that will save lives. What’s the matter with you??
Please take your PR talk/BS elsewhere. Let’s see how safe these things are after they have been tested over BILLIONS of miles in all kinds of traffic and weather conditions, not just a geo fenced loop.
As far as a “night out” is concerned, I can comandeer my own clean instantly available vehicle, not wait for some dirty garbage/germ infested box that may or may not get to me in a reasonable amount of time.
A bunch of BS. Cruise comparing their infinitesimally small pool of autonomous vehicles, running in designated, restricted areas of 1, now 3 test cities, in non-inclement weather to the 100+ million vehicles driven daily in the US by human drivers, vehicles driven in all weather conditions everywhere there are roads and highways, and claiming their AV’s are “safer”, that “humans are terrible drivers”, their AV’s will “save lives”, implying their vehicles are a necessary solution for lost lives is unfounded and laughable.
Cruise’s vehicles already cause problems and have been in accidents; and the are only 300 to 500 of them on the road in non-inclement weather in restricted areas. AV problems will only get worse as the number of vehicles increase and deployment becomes less restricted.
Cruise thinks “humans are terrible drivers”. What chaos will be caused when GPS communication drops out, senors fail, CPU dies, or Cruise pushes an OTA update that bricks the vehicle?
Also, Cruise “safety” cannot really be compared to Human “safety” until there is a like number of vehicles on the road, any road, in a all weather conditions. Cruise attempting to make comparisons with their limited fleet and miles driven is pure audacity.
Typical method of achieving or promoting or pushing a narrative, use scare tactics, the sky is falling, your gonna die. Truly sad but this is how things are done these days, earth is dying were all gonna die if we dont spend a couple of quadrillion dollars rite now they say. Even though they cant tell you if it would help or not.
I’m not buying or selling. And the technology may not be ready for prime time. But I think the furor over the ad is a lot of hype by critics trying to get attention for themselves, generating more “heat” than “light”. Shining a little “light”, here is the actual body of the ad, leaving out the eye-catching opening “headline”: “You might be a good driver, but many of us aren’t. People cause millions of accidents every year in the US. Cruise driverless cars are designed to save lives. Our cars are involved in 92% fewer collisions as the primary contributor. They also never drive distracted, drowsy or drunk.” Pretty dry, factual and non-emotional.
Sounds to me you are an employee of Cruise spewing some PR dribble.
Try driving your cars in 70 MPH freeway rush hour traffic on a consistent basis, or in a blinding snowstorm, or on a winding highway through the mountains. Repeat several thousand times. Them come back with your comparisons. I’m sure any driver can do pretty well driving around a neighborhood over and over and over again at a speed no greater than 30 MPH.
That purty good tigger, lol
Well the way I see it, Cruise will be too “smart” to go driving in a snowstorm or blizzard. As for winding mountain roads I would just as soon be in a Cruise as I would having an Uber driver that is always answering texts or phone calls.
If Cruise even saves 1 additional life per year on public roadways I’m all in with the technology.
I’m 72 years old and wish that the new EV technology had started when I was in my twenties. What a ride it’s going to be….
Sometimes one hasn’t a choice as to whether they drive in a snowstorm or blizzard…
Im not an ev or a cruise fan but i can see where it would help the elderly. I just dont want my only choices to be evs. evs dont have a soul, they dont have a sound, they dont breathe air. The only attractive looking evs are higher end sports cars that are out of 98% of the populations price range.
Great post Bill, but I think even with the elderly, there may be issues. If a person’s physical/mental has deteriorated to the point they are not able to drive, usually someone would have to accompany them to their destination to assist them. I would not trust some “nice person” waiting at the other end of my elderly loved one’s journey to be there to help them. The world’s just too dangerous.