The response to the motion for approval to settle at $75,000 from Craig Glidden, Cruise President and Chief Administrative Officer, was acknowledged by the commission. They can choose to adopt, adopt with revisions, or reject Cruise’s filing.
Judge Mason is expected to write a proposed decision on the case for the commissioner’s consideration, and this typically takes around 60 days, according to a CPUC spokesperson. Cruise expressed its eagerness to resolve the case and move forward, emphasizing its commitment to advancing the mission of bringing safer driverless cars and greater accessibility to the public.
However, Judge Mason’s comments suggested that the commission might not be keen on putting the case aside quickly, stating that it’s not one of the protracted litigations that they usually want to resolve swiftly. Cruise outlined key requirements it would follow as part of the settlement in its original motion filed on January 30.
These requirements include new data reporting enhancements, providing responses to the permit reinstatement questions, making a payment of $75,000 to the State General Fund, and closing the OSC proceeding upon approval of the Settlement Agreement. In an email to *Teslarati*, a Cruise spokesperson expressed the company’s commitment to improving transportation safety and working in partnership with regulators and government agencies.
Cruise also noted that the accident was partially caused by the driverless vehicle falsely identifying the situation and emphasized its commitment to earning back the trust of regulators and the public. The text reveals insights into how Cruise is addressing the case and working to restore trust.
The company’s commitment to improving safety and transparency with regulators and the public is evident from the outlined requirements and statements made to the press.