Why is Cruise going the robotaxi route and not providing GM with software to build a “driverless” car? Likely the same reason taxi companies should sue them. A legal loophole to avoid disclosing actual system performance limitations.

Michael DeKort
3 min readJun 6, 2022

Reference article — California Greenlights Nation’s First Driverless Taxi Fleet — https://gizmodo.com/cruise-self-driving-cars-approved-california-1849016216

A little while back I wrote the following article on Cruise declaring they had “driverless” vehicles in San Francisco. And how no proof the systems are “driverless’ or l4 are provided.

Cruise, like Waymo, now says they are driverless with no proof, nor any comment on Waymo’s CA DMV lawsuit to avoid providing safety data

https://imispgh.medium.com/cruise-like-waymo-now-says-they-are-driverless-with-no-proof-nor-any-comment-on-waymos-ca-dmv-319b4450edad

Now Cruise and that state of California have announced they will begin providing paid robotaxis rides soon. Why this route and not providing their largest benefactor GM with software to create a “driverless” car? Because doing so would put that software under the same customer and governmental scrutiny all the other vehicles GM sells deal with. That would include industry best practices or standards like ISO 26262, “Road vehicles — Functional safety” and SOTIF (Safety and the Intended Functionality or ISO 21448). Things they can avoid in the commercial space because they aren’t selling the vehicles to consumers. (Having said this NHTSA and state DoTs have been grossly negligent in this area. There are ZERO testable and meaningful autonomous vehicle safety an test standards in the US. The EU released their draft recently. Setting aside a couple gaps I think they should address, it is pretty good. Cruise, Waymo etc would all fail it. See my article below for more.)

This brings me to the taxi companies. It seems to me they should sue them for a multitude of reasons. The primary one being there is no licensed and tested operator of the vehicle. How is this not an unsafe and unfair trade practice?

Below are a couple articles that explain my POV in more detail. Including why the industry would rather harm people and go down with the ship than change.

The EU proposes a driverless driver’s test that is pretty good — Waymo, Cruise, Gatik etc would fail it

· https://imispgh.medium.com/the-eu-proposes-a-driverless-drivers-test-that-is-pretty-good-waymo-cruise-gatik-etc-would-27e692e8ea7e

Waymo and Cruise should prove their systems are legitimately L4

· https://imispgh.medium.com/waymo-and-cruise-should-prove-their-systems-are-legitimately-l4-79a094be061

Pride is Dooming the Driverless Vehicle Industry-Leadership Needs to Step Up

· https://imispgh.medium.com/pride-is-dooming-the-driverless-vehicle-industry-leadership-needs-to-step-up-1bd5183948d8

Autonomous Vehicle Industry’s Self-Inflicted and Avoidable Collapse — Ongoing Update

· https://imispgh.medium.com/autonomous-vehicle-industrys-self-inflicted-and-avoidable-collapse-ongoing-update-c21d9e65cc35

The Autonomous Vehicle Industry can be Saved by doing the Opposite of what is being done now to create this technology

· https://medium.com/@imispgh/the-autonomous-vehicle-industry-can-be-saved-by-doing-the-opposite-of-what-is-being-done-now-b4e5c6ae9237

How the failed Iranian hostage rescue in 1980 can save the Autonomous Vehicle industry

My name is Michael DeKort — I am Navy veteran (ASW C4ISR) and a former system engineer, engineering, and program manager for Lockheed Martin. I worked in aircraft simulation, the software engineering manager for all of NORAD, a software project manager on an Aegis Weapon System baseline, and a C4ISR systems engineer for DoD/DHS and the US State Department (counterterrorism). And a Senior Advisory Technical Project Manager for FTI to the Army AI Task Force at CMU NREC (National Robotics Engineering Center)

Autonomous Industry Participation — Air and Ground

- Founder SAE On-Road Autonomous Driving Simulation Task Force

- Member SAE ORAD Verification and Validation Task Force

- Member UNECE WP.29 SG2 Virtual Testing

- Stakeholder USDOT VOICES (Virtual Open Innovation Collaborative Environment for Safety)

- Member SAE G-35, Modeling, Simulation, Training for Emerging AV Tech

- Member SAE G-34 / EUROCAE WG-114 Artificial Intelligence in Aviation

- Member Teleoperation Consortium

- Member CIVATAglobal — Civic Air Transport Association

- Stakeholder for UL4600 — Creating AV Safety Guidelines

- Member of the IEEE Artificial Intelligence & Autonomous Systems Policy Committee

SAE Autonomous Vehicle Engineering magazine editor calling me “prescient” regarding my position on Tesla and the overall driverless vehicle industry’s untenable development and testing approach — (Page 2) https://assets.techbriefs.com/EML/2021/digital_editions/ave/AVE-202109.pdf

Presented the IEEE Barus Ethics Award for Post 9/11 DoD/DHS Whistleblowing Efforts

--

--

Michael DeKort

Non-Tribal Truth Seeker-IEEE Barus Ethics Award/9–11 Whistleblower-Aerospace/DoD Systems Engineer/Member SAE Autonomy and eVTOL development V&V & Simulation