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.
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
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.
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!
To give them credit and be fair to cruise though - in pharma the FDA makes pretty clear what's needed and doesn't let people just start selling drugs without proof they work (unless they were grandfathered in). If I was regulating the regulators, e.g. a congressperson or something, then I'd pin quite a bit of the blame on the government itself for letting the cars on the road without making clear what cruise needed to track and report, and how.