A Snapshot of Cruise Crash Reporting Transparency: July & August 2023

A comparability of California Cruise robotaxi crash reviews between the California DMV database and the NHTSA SGO database reveals vital discrepancies in reporting. 31 crashes reported to NHTSA don’t seem within the California DMV database. This contains seven unreported damage crashes. Of particular notice is the Cruise crash with a fireplace truck that triggered severe damage to an occupant of the Cruise robotaxi doesn’t seem as a California DMV crash report. To make certain, Cruise may not be legally required to file these reviews, however the state of affairs reveals an obvious lack of transparency.

Comparability Outcomes:

39 crashes had been recognized throughout each databases for the date-of-crash months of July 2023 by means of August 2023. The comparability was carried out on October 28, 2023, so there was satisfactory time for all such crashes to have been reported.

Every database was lacking a number of crashes discovered within the different database:

• 39 crashes within the NHTSA base, together with 8 additionally discovered within the CA DMV database.
• 31 crashes reported to NHTSA weren’t within the California DMV database
• The California DMV database was particularly lacking SEVEN (7) crash reviews which indicated an damage had occurred or might need occurred.

1. NHTSA 30412-5968: Different automobile ran a purple gentle putting Cruise; passenger of different car handled on scene for minor damage.
2. NHTSA 30412-5982: Different automobile bumped into Cruise; passenger of different car transported by EMS for additional analysis. Doable damage (“unknown” damage standing).
3. NHTSA 30412-6144: Cruise crash with fireplace truck; severe damage reported to passenger
4. NHTSA 30412-6145: Cruise reversing contacted bicycle owner; minor damage reported to bicycle owner
5. NHTSA 30412-6167: Cruise rear-ended after braking; minor damage reported to different car driver
6. NHTSA 30412-6175: Cruise hit pedestrian crossing in entrance of it (mentioned to be crossing in opposition to gentle); average damage to pedestrian
7. NHTSA 30412-6270: Cruise hit from behind after stopping to yield to pedestrian in crosswalk; minor damage to passengers inside AV

Two crashes concerned non-motorists:

Why the Disparity?

The factor that makes this difficult is that CA DMV doesn’t require reporting crashes for “deployment” operation — only for “testing” operation. Apparently when the rules had been written they didn’t anticipate that corporations would “deploy” immature expertise, however that’s precisely what has occurred.

It’s troublesome from out there info to verify how Cruise is figuring out which crashes should be reported to California DMV (testing) and which do not need to be reported (deployment). In follow it’d boil right down to a administration determination which of them they need to report, though there could be some much less arbitrary inside determination criterion in use.

CA DMV ought to require all corporations to offer them with unredacted copies of all NHTSA SGO reviews to offer improved transparency. For the foreseeable future, making a distinction between “testing” and “deployment” with no driver within the car serves no helpful objective, and impairs transparency. If there isn’t a driver it’s a deployment, and needs to be held to the requirements of a manufacturing car, together with reporting each crashes and driving conduct that places different street customers at undue threat. That is true for all corporations, not simply Cruise.

Different notes:

• CA DMV reviews have the road names, but Cruise redacts this similar info from reviews filed with NHTSA claiming it’s “confidential enterprise info.” It’s obscure how info publicly reported by California might be categorized as “confidential.”
• The NHTSA database doesn’t have the date of the crash, though the California database has that info.
• Crashes thought-about had been for reported incident dates of July & August 2023, contemplating solely uncrewed (no security driver) operation.
• It’s our understanding that Cruise will not be required to report all crashes that happen throughout deployment to California DMV. So it’s doable that these reporting inconsistencies are nonetheless in accordance with relevant rules.
• All crashes on this spreadsheet within the NHTSA database checklist the “driver/operator kind” as “Distant (Industrial / Check)” so it’s not doable to differentiate whether or not the car was thought-about in industrial service on the time of the crash. 
• On the time of this posting the tragic Oct. 2nd extreme damage crash that concerned a Cruise robotaxi dragging a pedestrian who had been trapped below the car has additionally not been reported, whereas one other crash on Oct sixth has. There’s nothing on the Oct sixth CA DMV kind to point that the reported crash was particular to a testing allow vs. deployment allow.

Evaluate standing: 

This knowledge has not been peer reviewed. Corrections/additions/clarifications are welcome to enhance accuracy. The information evaluation outcomes are included beneath.

Google Spreadsheet hyperlink:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1o9WWzMpiuum-QHZk9goY68gnBZuRC1InxUSMa7-h4DU/edit?usp=sharing

Information sources: 

Up to date 10/30/2023 to include three extra crash reviews present in a wider search of the SGO database. All CA DMV crash reviews have now been recognized within the SGO database.