
Google self-driving car crashes were covered up - abeld
https://www.salon.com/2018/10/16/googles-self-driving-cars-involved-in-unreported-crashes/
======
slivym
This is just a sensationalist snippet from the long read from the New Yorker
that was on hacker news yesterday. The engineer responsible was fired from
Google for forming his own company and eventually went to Uber which was the
cause of the massive lawsuit between the two, he's now close to unemployable.
Since that incident 4 years ago it's pretty clear a lot has changed -but one
thing that hasn't changed is Google's constant misrepresentation of their
safety record.

~~~
oldgradstudent
The crash was in 2011. Levandowski was fired in January 2016 only after he
tried to recruit other employees.

It demonstrates very well how they prioritize safety vs. potential profit.

------
mikejb
Did Google pay off the Camry driver? If I was pushed into an accident by a car
with company decals and a sensor suite on top [1], I'd definitely include this
when reporting the accident. It's an incredible story, and I'm not sure
whether I say that in it's literal or figurative meaning. (Note that the
author of the article is Charles Duhigg, a Pulitzer-price winning journalist -
so it's not just a story posted by some dude on his blog).

[1]
[https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cdgQpa1pUUE/maxresdefault.jpg](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cdgQpa1pUUE/maxresdefault.jpg)
(This is the type of cars they had in 2012).

~~~
oldgradstudent
What I understood from the article is that they left the scene without
reporting it.

There was another incident they never reported. The other driver was
undocumented and he also preferred not to report.

~~~
mikejb
> The other driver was undocumented and he also preferred not to report.

I don't live in the US, so I don't know - but is that common? To me, it sounds
like a significant accident, and I fail to understand why it wouldn't be
reported.

~~~
stevenwoo
The undocumented person may have not had insurance which would be one set of
problems, or might have thought they would be at fault to some degree - being
in an accident with someone injured would have involved police - both
circumstances leading to contact with authorities could have led to
deportation. It is not common to not have insurance but even in the case of
people here legally, those without insurance commonly run from accidents
because of the penalties for not having insurance. There is also the case of
people with insurance but having a lot of driving penalty points (for
speeding/running stop signs or lights) running or attempting to pay cash to
avoid involving insurance because they have very expensive insurance due to
driving history and do not want to get forced into an even higher insurance
bracket.

~~~
mikejb
That makes a lot of sense, thanks for the explanation!

------
godzillabrennus
How does a man require multiple surgeries to his spine from an accident but
the company paying for those surgeries claims the accident isn’t known?

That’s about as amazing as Hollywood accounting.

~~~
mikejb
Playing the devils advocate here: There was (apparently) no physical contact
between the cars, so one could just tell a different story about the type of
accident, or just leave out that the Camry then pinwheeled into the median.
(Reason for lying about it could be that they drove the car in autonomous mode
on 'forbidden routes' and feared repercussions).

Having said that - I doubt that's how things happened.

~~~
londons_explore
'pinwheeled into the median' sounds like loosing control...

That only is likley to happen if someone hits someone else...

~~~
mikejb
It doesn't sound like the cars collided. The original story [1] includes more
details, but it definitely sounds like a collision was avoided, and that
avoidance caused the spine injury and the Camry pinwheeling.

> The cars continued speeding down the freeway side by side. The Camry’s
> driver jerked his car onto the right shoulder. Then, apparently trying to
> avoid a guardrail, he veered to the left; the Camry pinwheeled across the
> freeway and into the median. Levandowski, who was acting as the safety
> driver, swerved hard to avoid colliding with the Camry, causing Taylor to
> injure his spine so severely that he eventually required multiple surgeries.

> The Prius regained control and turned a corner on the freeway, leaving the
> Camry behind.

[1] [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/22/did-uber-
steal...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/22/did-uber-steal-
googles-intellectual-property)

------
Piskvorrr
So, does that mean the "spotless safety record" meant "you can't _find_
anything about our mistakes"? That doesn't sound creepy at all, nonono.

~~~
skgoa
Everyone games the mandatory safety reporting. Mostly by doing testing under
the radar and/or outside California. Google has taken that a step further by
counting disengagements (meaning instances of the system failing and having to
be overriden by the driver) only when the system would definitely have
crashed.

~~~
oldgradstudent
> only when the system would definitely have crashed.

With no external oversight, no transparency, and a sketchy record of honest
reporting.

------
hanswesterbeek
All the tech aside (because I suppose they'll kind of get it done sooner or
later), what I really want to know on this subject is: who's legally
responsible in the case of an accident?

------
TeeWEE
This is the worst article i ever read. Its suggestive, and it point to 2014.
Its just trying to get viewers.

~~~
oldgradstudent
It's better than the usual BS which is just repackaged PR coming from Waymo,
Uber, and the other self-driving car promoters.

