Connect with us

News

Cruise forced to boost settlement offer in California accident hearing

Credit: Cruise

Published

on

A California judge has forced General Motors’ (GM) self-driving unit Cruise to increase its settlement offer to the maximum amount, after one of the company’s robotaxis pinned and seriously injured a pedestrian in October.

On October 2, a driverless Cruise vehicle dragged and pinned a pedestrian in San Francisco, and the company’s license to operate self-driving cars was immediately revoked by the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The DMV later said that Cruise “misrepresented” and “omitted” crucial details about its response to the accident, and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in December ordered the company to appear before a judge this month.

During the hearing, which was held on Tuesday, California Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Robert Mason III suggested that Cruise revise its $75,000 settlement offer to the maximum penalty of $112,500, after calling the company’s proposed amount “low,” and even suggesting the company was seeking a “discount.”

While Judge Mason III said he appreciated Cruise attempting to take “corrective action” in its crash response procedures, he added that the company should “take a hint” following his multiple questions about the offer amount, suggesting directly that Cruise change its settlement offer to the full penalty.

“Point taken, your Honor,” responded Craig Glidden, Cruise President and Chief Administrative Officer. “We immediately revise our offer to the amount requested.”

Advertisement

Waymo could face new legal barriers in its expansion to Los Angeles

The hearing discussed findings from an investigation conducted by the law firm Quinn Emanuel, which Cruise hired, including that internet connectivity hampered the company’s sharing of video footage from the accident with regulators in meetings that followed.

In response to the motion for approval to settle at $75,000, the commission can adopt, adopt with revisions, or reject Cruise’s filing. Following the hearing, the next step is for Judge Mason to write a proposed decision on the case for the commissioner’s consideration, with the general timeframe falling within about 60 days, as a CPUC spokesperson clarified to Teslarati.

Cruise said it was eager to resolve the case and move past the incident, adding that it wanted to continue to “advance the mission of bringing driverless cars that are safer to the public and also greater accessibility to the public to the market.”

However, Mason didn’t make it sound like the commission was eager to set the case aside:

Advertisement

“While the commission does fall on the side of getting its cases resolved, I don’t know that this is one of those protracted pieces of litigation that we’re usually most anxious to put aside and then move forward with the regulatory process,” Mason added.

In the original motion, filed on January 30, Cruise outlines the key requirements it would have to follow as part of the settlement:

1. Cruise will adopt voluntarily several new data reporting enhancements that will provide additional data to the Commission concerning California collisions and AVs operating in California under a deployment permit that enter a minimal risk condition (“MRC”) state and result in conditions described in Attachment A;

2. Cruise will provide the Commission with Cruise’s responses to the permit reinstatement questions from the California Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) at the same time Cruise provides those responses to the DMV;

3. Cruise will make a payment of $75,000 to the State General Fund within ten (10) days of the Commission’s approval of the Settlement Agreement without modification; and

Advertisement

4. Upon the Commission’s approval of the Settlement Agreement, the OSC proceeding will be closed.

“We are committed to working in partnership with the CPUC, other regulators and government agencies to improve transportation safety in support of a shared goal –– providing better, safer and more accessible transportation to the public in our communities,” a Cruise spokesperson wrote in an email to Teslarati. “Over the past several months, we have taken important steps to improve our leadership, processes and culture, and we are committed to resolving matters to the Commission’s satisfaction as we work to restore regulatory and public trust.”

Cruise also noted that the accident, which occurred after the pedestrian had already been hit by a human driver, was partially caused by the driverless ride-hailing vehicle falsely identifying the situation as a side-impact collision rather than a frontal collision, causing the Minimal Risk Condition (MRC) response that forces the vehicle to pull over.

In addition, Cruise said it is currently expecting a new Chief Safety Officer in the “not too distant future,” after two co-founders resigned immediately following the accident, and after the company fired nine executives and laid off nearly a quarter of its staff on the same day in December.

GM recently announced plans to cut spending on Cruise in half this year, though it said it also hoped to “refocus and relaunch” the company’s operations. GM CEO Mary Barra highlighted significant changes at Cruise, which the company began implementing following the Quinn Emanuel investigation.

Advertisement

“At Cruise, we are committed to earning back the trust of regulators and the public through our commitments and our actions,” Barra said following GM’s 2023 earnings call.

You can see the full January 30 filing from Cruise below, including the findings from the Quinn Emanuel investigation, which Cruise made public last month.

What are your thoughts? Let me know at zach@teslarati.com, find me on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send your tips to us at tips@teslarati.com.

Advertisement

Zach is a renewable energy reporter who has been covering electric vehicles since 2020. He grew up in Fremont, California, and he currently lives in Colorado. His work has appeared in the Chicago Tribune, KRON4 San Francisco, FOX31 Denver, InsideEVs, CleanTechnica, and many other publications. When he isn't covering Tesla or other EV companies, you can find him writing and performing music, drinking a good cup of coffee, or hanging out with his cats, Banks and Freddie. Reach out at zach@teslarati.com, find him on X at @zacharyvisconti, or send us tips at tips@teslarati.com.

Advertisement
Comments

News

Tesla Cybertruck explosion probe ends with federal involvement and new questions

The 78-page document detailed a planned attack by former Green Beret Matthew Livelsberger, who died by suicide before the blast that injured six people.

Published

on

Credit: IAA Auctions

The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) has released its final investigative report into the New Year’s Day Cybertruck explosion outside the Trump International Hotel. But instead of bringing clarity, the findings have only raised more questions. 

The 78-page document detailed a planned attack by former Green Beret Matthew Livelsberger, who died by suicide before the blast that injured six people.

The perpetrator’s manifesto

According to a Fox News report, Livelsberger rented the all-electric pickup through Turo while on leave from his Special Forces unit. He filled the rented Cybertruck with fireworks, gas cans, and camping fuel before driving it to the hotel shortly after 8:40 a.m. on January 1. Surveillance footage showed him pouring accelerant into the truck bed moments before detonation, confirming premeditation.

Livelsberger left a manifesto on his phone, which was later deemed classified by the Department of War. This case was then handed over to federal authorities. Still, the LVMPD and federal investigators noted in their report that the incident was a “vehicle-borne improvised explosive device” (VBIED) attack “with the potential to cause mass casualties and extensive structural damage.” Officials, however, stopped short of labeling it terrorism.

In digital notes, Livelsberger wrote that his act was not terror-related but intended as “a wake-up call,” criticizing what he called America’s “feckless leadership.” He wrote, “Americans only pay attention to spectacles and violence. What better way to get my point across than a stunt with fireworks and explosives.”

Advertisement

The incident ironically showcased the Cybertruck’s durability

Tesla CEO Elon Musk was among the first to respond publicly after the blast, confirming through X that the company’s senior team was investigating the incident. He later stated that vehicle telemetry showed no malfunction and that the explosion was caused by “very large fireworks and/or a bomb” placed in the Cybertruck’s bed.

Ironically, footage of the incident in the Cybertruck’s bed showed that the vehicle’s durable construction actually helped contain the explosion by directing the blast upwards. The bed remained largely intact after the explosion as well. Even more surprisingly, the Cybertruck’s battery did not catch fire despite the blast.

Months later, the same Cybertruck appeared on the online auction platform IAA, marked as “not ready for sale.” The listing has stirred debate among Tesla fans about why the historic vehicle wasn’t reclaimed by the company. The vehicle, after all, could serve as a symbol of the Cybertruck’s resilience, even in extreme circumstances.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Norway’s $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund votes against Elon Musk’s 2025 performance award

The fund is managed by Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), and it holds a 1.14% stake in Tesla valued at about $11.6 billion.

Published

on

MINISTÉRIO DAS COMUNICAÇÕES, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Norway’s $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund has voted against Elon Musk’s 2025 performance award, which will be ultimately decided at Tesla’s upcoming annual shareholder meeting. 

The fund is managed by Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), and it holds a 1.14% stake in Tesla valued at about $11.6 billion.

NBIM’s opposition

NBIM confirmed it had already cast its vote against Musk’s pay package, citing concerns over its total size, dilution, and lack of mitigation of key person risk, as noted in a CNBC report. The fund acknowledged Musk’s leadership of the EV maker, and it stated that it will continue to seek dialogue with Tesla about its concerns. 

“While we appreciate the significant value created under Mr. Musk’s visionary role, we are concerned about the total size of the award, dilution, and lack of mitigation of key person risk- consistent with our views on executive compensation. We will continue to seek constructive dialogue with Tesla on this and other topics,” NBIM noted.

The upcoming Tesla annual shareholder meeting will decide whether Musk should receive his proposed 2025 performance award, which would grant him large stock options over the next decade if Tesla hits several ambitious milestones, such as a market cap of $8.5 trillion. The 2025 performance award will also increase Musk’s stake in Tesla to 25%.

Advertisement

Elon Musk and NBIM

Elon Musk’s proposed 2025 CEO performance award has proven polarizing, with large investors split on whether the executive should be given a pay package that, if fully completed, would make him a trillionaire. 

Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis have recommended that shareholders vote against the deal, and initiatives such as the “Take Back Tesla” campaign have rallied investors to oppose the proposed performance award. On the other hand, other large investors such as ARK Invest and the State Board of Administration of Florida (SBA) have urged shareholders to approve the compensation plan. 

Interestingly enough, this is not the first time that Musk and NBIM have found themselves on opposing sides. Last year, NBIM voted against reinstating Musk’s 2018 performance award, which had already been fully accomplished but was rescinded by a Delaware judge.

Later reports shared text messages between Musk and NBIM Chief Executive Nicolai Tangen, who was inviting the CEO to a dinner in Oslo. Musk declined the invitation, writing, “When I ask you for a favor, which I very rarely do, and you decline, then you should not ask me for one until you’ve done something to make amends. Friends are as friends do.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Elon Musk

Tesla begins production of new Model Y trim at Giga Berlin

Tesla announced on Monday that its Model Y Standard configuration was officially being built at Giga Berlin, less than one month after the company officially announced the configuration early last month.

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla has begun production of the new Model Y trim at Gigafactory Berlin, the company’s production plant in Germany.

Tesla announced on Monday that its Model Y Standard configuration was officially being built at Giga Berlin, less than one month after the company officially announced the configuration early last month.

On October 7, Tesla announced the launch of the Model 3 and Model Y Standard trim levels, its answer to the call for affordable EVs within its lineup and its response to the loss of the $7,500 electric vehicle tax credit.

On October 3, Tesla started production of the vehicles in Germany:

The Standard iteration of the Model Y is void of many of the more premium features that are available in the Rear-Wheel-Drive, All-Wheel-Drive, and Performance trims of the vehicle are equipped with.

A few of the features of the Model Y Standard are:

  • Single Motor configuration
  • No rear touchscreen
  • Textile seats with vegan leather, instead of all vegan leather
  • 320-mile range
  • No glass roof

The launch of the Model Y Standard was truly a move to help Tesla get vehicles into the sub-$40,000 price point, and although many consumers were hoping to see the company get closer to $30,000 with these cars, this is a great starting point.

Deliveries in the United States have already started, and it seems it will be a vehicle that will do one of two things: either push some consumers to finally make the jump to Tesla, or it will give car buyers another reason to buy the Premium trims, as they may feel the lack of features is not a good enough deal.

This is something we saw with the Cybertruck’s Rear-Wheel-Drive configuration, which launched last year and ended up being more of the latter option listed above.

The Tesla Model Y Standard is actually a great deal in Europe

It was only a $10,000 discount from the All-Wheel-Drive Cybertruck, but it also did not have adaptive air suspension, premium interiors, or the powered tonneau cover, which many people felt was too much of a sacrifice.

The Rear-Wheel-Drive Cybertruck was discontinued only a few months later.

It does not seem as if this is the case with the Model Y Standard, which already seems to be an attractive option to some buyers.

Continue Reading

Trending