Go home, Cruise, you’re drunk – but call a Waymo, cause you can’t drive in CA anymore
Cruise’s license to operate autonomous vehicles in the state of California has been suspended effective immediately, announced the California Department of Motor Vehicles today.
GM’s Cruise subsidiary has been operating a driverless taxi service in San Francisco for the last few months, after the California Public Utilities Commission approved both GM’s Cruise and Google’s Waymo to expand operations of paid driverless “level 4” taxis in California.
Prior to that approval, Cruise had already been operating a paid driverless taxi service, but only at night. Its cars could operate at other times of day, but had to be either unpaid or have a safety driver present. Cruise actually beat Waymo to the punch on this one, offering a paid taxi service before its Google-based competitor did.
But now the tides have swung back into Waymo’s favor, as the California DMV has decided that Cruise vehicles are a threat to safety and must cease operations in the state immediately until the DMV is satisfied that Cruise has come into compliance with its requirements.
The announcement was made by the DMV today which laid out four violations, related to safety and misrepresentation of facts to the DMV.
These violations were related to an October 2nd incident wherein a human driver hit a pedestrian (and then fled the scene), which pushed the pedestrian into the path of a Cruise vehicle. The Cruise vehicle immediately started braking to a halt before hitting the pedestrian, who was then stuck underneath, and remained on the scene while emergency responders extricated the seriously injured pedestrian. Video confirming the facts of the incident was shared with regulators, and shared with and verified by journalists, but not released to the public.
…Or so the story went. In further investigations, the DMV found out that, in fact, the Cruise vehicle did not remain still after braking, and attempted to pull over to the side of the road, dragging the seriously injured pedestrian about 20 feet at a speed of around 7 miles per hour. While Cruise had video of this subsequent maneuver, it did not disclose the video to the DMV until after DMV learned of it “via discussion with another government agency.”
The DMV’s letter to Cruise chides the company for withholding information, and states that the vehicle’s “subsequent movement… increased the risk of, and may have caused, further injury to the pedestrian.” It also suggests that the vehicles may lack the decisionmaking capability of when it is safer to pull over or when it is safer to sit still after an accident.
So despite Cruise’s lack of responsibility for the initial strike, DMV has still laid responsibility on its decisions after the fact, both in terms of driving and organizational decisions.
The suspension is effective immediately, with Cruise no longer allowed to operate driverless taxis on California roads, though the company can still operate and test vehicles with human safety drivers. DMV states that it has provided Cruise with the steps necessary to reinstate its permits, so we’ll have to stay tuned to see how long it takes them to satisfy the DMV and be able to operate again.
Electrek’s Take
Cruise has been involved in several incidents recently, which have largely been widely reported. From traffic jams due to communication issues within the system, to getting hit by an emergency vehicle (Cruise had a green light – but failed to yield for a fire truck), to driving through wet concrete, there has been quite a bit of bad news.
In contrast, Google’s Waymo, which is often mentioned in the same breath as GM’s Cruise, hasn’t had as many problems. While we haven’t been able to compare both of them (I got a chance to test Waymo’s service in LA earlier this month, and came away impressed – read my way-too-detailed article about that ride here – but haven’t been in a Cruise car yet), anecdotally, we hear that the Waymo system works better than Cruise’s, and it also hasn’t had as many widely-reported issues.
Recently, Cruise CEO Kyle Vogt stated that these incidents have been “sensationalized,” and frankly he’s not entirely wrong. We’ve known all along that people would be overly cautious of new technology, would accept far less dangerous driving from AVs than the run-of-the-mill (and increasing) chaos they happily accept from human drivers.
You could write volumes about the crazy things that humans have done on the road in the same time frame as Cruise has been operating in SF. I drove for just a few hours today and saw 13 police cars headed for a high-speed chase of a human driver who was going 100mph in the wrong direction, and then later saw a lowered SUV with a popped tire dragging its rear bumper down the freeway, throwing sparks behind it. That was just today, on one drive.
And look at the incident in question here – a human driver caused the accident and fled the scene so as not to be held accountable, and yet virtually all discussion of it has focused on the Cruise AV. Had the Cruise been in the place of the human driver, perhaps the incident would never have happened, and at the very least, at least the vehicle didn’t flee the scene so it could “accept the consequences.”
But that’s the rub – when the humans at Cruise got involved, they misled regulators in a way so as to not accept responsibility. They “hit-and-ran” in the same way as the human driver did.
And while it’s true that the public reacts irrationally to news of AVs behaving badly, Cruise should have known that the public, and regulators, react wholly rationally to public safety cover-ups. In short: they’re not fans.
So when the incident first happened, I thought: okay, this is silly, the main incident people are using to call AVs unsafe is one which was started by a human driver?
But given that there’s more to the story, then it is of course reasonable to suspend Cruise’s license for its mendaciousness in this matter. And hopefully, this will be addressable. Cruise should be able to program the cars to be smarter about what to do in a situation where a pedestrian is actively trapped underneath the vehicle, and hopefully they can program themselves to be a little smarter about transparency in government investigations.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Environment
Trump to declare national energy emergency, expanding his legal options to address high costs
As electric trail bikes like Sur Rons and Talarias gain popularity among off-road enthusiasts, a growing conflict is emerging on mountain bike trails. These powerful machines, capable of speeds and torque far beyond that of a traditional mountain bike, are raising concerns among trail users, land managers, and environmental advocates.
First though, some semantical housekeeping. The term “e-bike” is often used to cast a pretty wide net, encompassing everything from cute little folder e-bikes to much more powerful electric motorbikes. Similar to the way motorcycle riders often talk about their “bikes”, the term “e-bike” in colloquial discussion is just that: colloquial.
The term “electric bicycle”, on the other hand, is an actual regulatory designation that lets most electric mountain bikes and other commuter-style e-bikes fit under the legal definition of bicycles. To oversimplify it, the e-bike that looks like a typical mountain bike is an electric bicycle. The one that looks like a motorcycle or dirt bike is probably not an electric bicycle.
That’s an important distinction because it’s becoming a major issue on mountain bike trails all over North America and in many other parts of the world.
Unlike a typical 50 lb electric mountain bike that can output an amount of power roughly in line with a healthy adult, electric motorbikes like those from Sur Ron, Talaria, and other brands can weigh 2-3x as much while outputting 5-10x the amount of power as a typical electric mountain bike. They’re a blast to ride, but like many things in life, there’s a time and a place. Their proliferation of Sur Ron-style electric motorbikes has been wreaking havoc on mountain bike trails where such bikes are almost always illegal.
Mountain bike trails are carefully designed to handle the wear and tear of typical mountain bikes. Normal electric mountain bikes, which have electric motor power levels similar to human pedaling power, typically mesh fairly well with mountain bike trails.
However, the high torque and weight of bikes like Sur Rons and Talarias can wreak havoc on these trails. Such power motorbikes are often responsible for increased erosion, deeper ruts, and widening of trails in areas where these bikes are being used. It’s often not just a matter of normal trail wear, but rather damage that can take significant time and resources to repair.
Trail widening, often caused by riders veering off designated paths, also leads to environmental degradation, harming vegetation and wildlife habitats.
Mountain bike trails are often designated for non-motorized use, and electric trail bikes with such high-power motors and large tires are almost never allowed. Some mountain bike parks have begun accepting Class 1, 2, and/or 3 e-bikes, but Sur Rons and Talarias are almost always prohibited due to their much higher performance. Their power and speed far exceed what’s allowed for e-bikes under most regulations, putting them squarely in the category of motorized vehicles like dirt bikes and ATVs.
Weight also plays a major role. The risk of serious injuries is also higher due to the mass and momentum of these larger machines. With top speeds often exceeding 40 mph (64 km/h), electric motorbikes are significantly faster than traditional electric bicycles or pedal bikes. This speed disparity creates hazardous conditions for slower-moving trail users.
When combined with the fact that many riders of powerful electric motorbikes are new to the sport after buying or being gifted a Sur Ron-style bike, that high speed can be even more dangerous in the hands of a novice rider.
Just last week, two riders on Talarias were kicked out of Quiet Waters Park Mountain Bike Trails in South Florida, a volunteer-maintained mountain bike trail system that permits Class 1 electric bicycles (e-bikes that are pedal-assisted up to 20 mph or 32 km/h and 750W of power).
As a lead volunteer in the trail building and maintenance team at the park, Nick Calabro was there when the riders were confronted by a county worker and asked to leave. “Multiple riders reported interactions with them, from encountering them riding in the wrong direction to not wearing required helmets, and of course not even being allowed to ride those bikes on the trails,” Calabro explained to Electrek.
According to Calabro, the pair had purchased trail day passes for mountain bike riders, but then brought their much larger and more powerful Talaria motorbikes into the park.
The two were seen on video attempting to fight the trail volunteers after being asked to leave the park. The interaction took place just a few yards from a sign with the posted rules of the park (seen at 0:11 in the video below).
Such interactions represent a small but growing phenomenon on mountain bike trails, where traditional mountain bike culture and trail etiquette clash head-on with Sur Ron riders unfamiliar with the practices and terrain.
Fortunately, many other locations exist that are ideal for electric motorbikes that fall outside the realm of traditional electric mountain bikes.
Off-highway vehicle (OHV) trails that are designed for motorized vehicles like UTVs, ATVs, and dirt bikes, are ideal locations to ride powerful electric trail bikes. Such trails are built with higher power vehicles in mind, and aren’t as delicate as mountain bike trails.
Forestry/backcountry dirt roads, gravel roads, and fire roads can provide a mix of typical off-road riding and exploration, though don’t offer the same type of topography.
Motocross tracks are also excellent locations for Sur Ron and Talaria-style bikes, which can use the features for more thrilling jumps and berm riding.
Private land (with the landowner’s permission) is perhaps one of the best places for these powerful electric motorbikes due to their ability to overland and explore areas beyond the beaten path.
As the popularity of powerful electric trail bikes continues to rise, the question of how and where they should be ridden remains a contentious one. But with their ability to ride much rougher terrain as well as their increased impact on that terrain, one thing is for sure: delicate mountain bike trails aren’t the place for such powerful bikes.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
The Rio Tinto Group logo atop Central Park tower, which houses the company’s offices, in Perth, Australia, on Friday, Jan. 17, 2025.
Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images
The mining sector appears poised for a frantic year of dealmaking, following market speculation over a potential tie-up between industry giants Rio Tinto and Glencore.
It comes after Bloomberg News reported Thursday that British-Australian multinational Rio Tinto and Switzerland-based Glencore were in early-stage merger talks, although it was not clear whether the discussions were still live.
Separately, Reuters reported Friday that Glencore approached Rio Tinto late last year about the possibility of combining their businesses, citing a source familiar with the matter. The talks, which were said to be brief, were thought to be no longer active, the news agency reported.
Rio Tinto and Glencore both declined to comment when contacted by CNBC.
A prospective merger between Rio Tinto, the world’s second-largest miner, and Glencore, one of world’s largest coal companies, would rank as the mining industry’s largest-ever deal.
Combined, the two firms would have a market value of approximately $150 billion, leapfrogging longstanding industry leader BHP, which is worth about $127 billion.
Analysts were broadly skeptical about the merits of a Rio Tinto-Glencore merger, pointing to limited synergies, Rio Tinto’s complex dual structure and strategic divergences over coal and corporate culture as factors that pose a challenge for concluding a deal.
“I think everyone’s a bit surprised,” Maxime Kogge, equity analyst at Oddo BHF, told CNBC via telephone.
“Honestly, they have limited overlapping assets. It’s only copper where there is really some synergies and opportunity to add assets to make a bigger group,” Kogge said.
Global mining giants have been mulling the benefits of mega-mergers to shore up their position in the energy transition, particularly with demand for metals such as copper expected to skyrocket over the coming years.
A highly conductive metal, copper is projected to face shortages due to its use in powering electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar panels and energy storage systems, among other applications.
Oddo BHF’s Kogge said it is currently “really tricky” for large mining firms to bring new projects online, citing Rio Tinto’s long-delayed and controversial Resolution copper mine in the U.S. as one example.
“It’s a very promising copper project, it could be one of the largest in the world, but it is fraught with issues and somehow acquiring another company is a way to really accelerate the expansion into copper,” Kogge said.
“For me, a deal is not so attractive,” he added. “It goes against what all these groups have previously tried to do.”
Last year, BHP made a $49 billion bid for smaller rival Anglo American, a proposal which ultimately failed due to issues with the deal’s structure.
Some analysts, including those at JPMorgan, expect another unsolicited offer for Anglo American to materialize in 2025.
M&A parlor games
Analysts led by Dominic O’Kane at JPMorgan said the bank’s “high conviction view” that 2025 would be defined by mergers and acquisitions (M&A), particularly among U.K.-listed miners and global copper companies, was coming to fruition just two weeks into the year.
The Wall Street bank said its own analysis of the mining sector found that the current economic and risk management environment meant M&A was likely preferred to the building of organic projects.
Analysts at JPMorgan predicted the latest speculation would soon thrust Anglo American back into the spotlight, “specifically the merits and probability of another combination proposal from BHP.”
Prior to pursuing Anglo American, BHP completed an acquisition of OZ Minerals in 2023, bolstering its copper and nickel portfolio.
The company logo adorns the side of the BHP gobal headquarters in Melbourne on February 21, 2023. – The Australian multinational, a leading producer of metallurgical coal, iron ore, nickel, copper and potash, said net profit slumped 32 percent year-on-year to 6.46 billion US dollars in the six months to December 31. (Photo by William WEST / AFP) (Photo by WILLIAM WEST/AFP via Getty Images)
William West | Afp | Getty Images
Analysts led by Ben Davis at RBC Capital Markets said it remains unclear whether talks between Rio Tinto and Glencore could result in a simple merger or require the breakup of certain parts of each company instead.
Regardless, they said the M&A parlor games that arose following merger talks between BHP and Anglo American will undoubtedly “start up again in earnest.”
“Despite Glencore once approaching Rio Tinto’s key shareholder Chinalco in July 2014 for a potential merger, it still comes as a surprise,” analysts at RBC Capital Markets said in a research note published Thursday.
BHP’s move to acquire Anglo American may have catalyzed talks between Rio Tinto and Glencore, the analysts said, with the former potentially looking to gain more copper exposure and the latter seeking an exit strategy for its large shareholders.
“We would not expect a straight merger to happen as we believe Rio shareholders would see it as favouring Glencore, but [it’s] possible there is a deal structure out there that could keep both sets of shareholders and management happy,” they added.
Copper, coal and culture
Analysts led by Wen Li at CreditSights said speculation over a Rio Tinto-Glencore merger raises questions about strategic alignment and corporate culture.
“Strategically, Rio Tinto might be interested in Glencore’s copper assets, aligning with its focus on sustainable, future-facing metals. Additionally, Glencore’s marketing business could offer synergies and expand Rio Tinto’s reach,” analysts at CreditSights said in a research note published Friday.
“However, Rio Tinto’s lack of interest in coal assets, due to recent divestments, suggests any merger would need careful structuring to avoid unwanted asset overlaps,” they added.
A mining truck carries a full load of coal at Glencore Plc operated Tweefontein coal mine on October 16, 2024 in Tweefontein, Mpumalanga Province, South Africa.
Per-anders Pettersson | Getty Images News | Getty Images
From a cultural perspective, analysts at CreditSights said Rio Tinto was known for its conservative approach and focus on stability, whereas Glencore had garnered a reputation for “constantly pushing the envelope in its operations.”
“This cultural divide might pose challenges in integration and decision-making if a merger were to proceed,” analysts at CreditSights said.
“If this materializes, it could have broader implications for mega deals in the metals [and] mining space, potentially putting BHP/Anglo American back in play,” they added.
— CNBC’s Ganesh Rao contributed to this report.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports10 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway