California Disengagement Reports reveal tidbits


The California Robocar disengagement reports. They don't tell us a great deal but here is some analysis with tidbits learned from them, and a discussion of why Tesla is missing.

California Disengagement Reports show tidbits on the players


Firstly, you are a former Waymo employee and you give a very favorable review to Waymo (e.g. you point out their safety metric report but neglect to describe its relevance). Can you please, in the article, disclose your complete financial stakes in Waymo and other companies? Leaving this out gives the reader a false sense of your position as a “journalist.”

Second, you talk about how Tesla is perhaps skirting the CA DMV regulations in not reporting and how Uber tried to do this but was rebuffed. In Tesla’s case they do not own the majority of the test vehicles, and they can’t report without breaching privacy. Why not actually report raw data, videos, and interviews to show what Tesla’s level of safety is actually like? You uniquely have the time and resources to do that, and the story would be substantially more valuable than a mild criticism of Tesla and talking down the relevance of the CA disengagement reporting as a whole. If you use your column to just enhance the corporate echo chamber of “CA disengagements dont matter,” we make no progress in making the safety of AVs accessible.

I last worked for Waymo in 2013 and am hardly financially biased by them. I own some GOOG stock that I bought before working there, it's a pretty small part of my net worth. My positive opinion of Waymo comes from knowing it well enough to be impressed, not because I benefit in any way I would notice if I boost it. I find the idea that GOOG stock would go up or down based on what I write about Waymo amusing. Do you actually imply that this is the case?

Add new comment