Yes but for that to stick there has to be a clear obligation to present everything. Frankly, I don’t think they lost their licence because of the omission, but because of what happened - this article is just trying to make the story more dramatic. Even the title subtly implies this, the licence wasn’t revoked “because” it withheld footage, but “after”.
Yeah a reasonable person would decide that on the balance of probabilities here, but we’re talking about the process through which a licence is revoked, which needs to be more concrete.
The actual document from the DMV lists the omission as one of the reasons.
During the meeting on October 3. 2023. Cruise failed to disclose that the AV executed a pullover maneuver that increased the risk of, and may have caused, further injury to a pedestrian. Cruise’s omission hinders the ability of the department to effectively and timely evaluate the safe operation of Cruise’s vehicles and puts the safety of the public at risk
This is why we have “guilt by omission”
Yes but for that to stick there has to be a clear obligation to present everything. Frankly, I don’t think they lost their licence because of the omission, but because of what happened - this article is just trying to make the story more dramatic. Even the title subtly implies this, the licence wasn’t revoked “because” it withheld footage, but “after”.
Anybody reasonable reading the article understands the obligation is there.
Yeah a reasonable person would decide that on the balance of probabilities here, but we’re talking about the process through which a licence is revoked, which needs to be more concrete.
The actual document from the DMV lists the omission as one of the reasons.