[JumpCrisscross]

> Cruise certainly knows

Given the number of drivers who seemingly-unknowingly bump and run pedestrians, I wouldn’t be so sure.

[uoaei]

Drivers don't typically have signals high-resolution 360 degree views, accelerometers, and other sensors on the outside of an insulated steel and aluminum vehicle piped directly into their sensory experience.

[pimlottc]

Sure, but if it was easy to interpret the results of all those sensors they wouldn’t be hitting people in the first place.

[newprint]

Hitting anything should be registered, let alone people.

[jeffrallen]

Or maybe they just don't care.

Their business model is, "move fast, break laws, hope that society changes the laws before we go bankrupt".

Self driving cars need to be sent to Antarctica and tested there, where there's no humans to drag.

[bdcravens]

Analyzing archived footage is much different than real-time analysis.

[vikramkr]

It's not easy to act on the information in a car. But the technology is sure as hell advanced enough to tell if you hit someone. I mean it's literally video you can look at it

[chankstein38]

But is anyone reviewing these videos? Just having hundreds or thousands of hours of videos doesn't mean you know what's in those videos.

[vikramkr]

If I was a regulator, that sounds like their problem not mine. They have the data. Let them analyze it. Maybe a different branch of the government could help them with that but if they're bringing the new tech that's on them to prove it. It's not like pharma spends hundreds of millions on a clinical trial for fun. Getting that safety data is hard and will cost billions of dollars? That's your problem not mine. They don't want to spend billions parsing the data? They don't need to be let onto the road either.

[chankstein38]

Fair point! I was definitely in more the "They don't currently know" thought process but you're right, they have the data they just need to actually review it if they haven't!