4 ms·

Cruise refutes SFFD claim that AVs blocked ambulance, led to victim’s death

25 points by mikhael 3y ago

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ncr100 3y ago
This is bad for both SF Fire Department, and Cruise. Cruise's business is in an area where human life can easily be impacted. This incident, regardless of fault, reminds us of that. It suggests the need for over cautiousness, and American business is not known for that. So Cruise will face enthusiastic critique for its entire existence. SFFD sounds like it's made a mistake, and it too is in the life or death "business". So it will receive an unpleasant audit for this incident. Overall the public is losing, it seems, as this is too chaotic and unsafe a system to be allowed. So we must now step in and regulate.
- Hydraulix989 3y ago
  Remember, the pedestrian was originally struck by a human driver. No matter how much statistically safer Cruise is than human drivers, there will always be an unfair press scrutiny on individual incidents amid Luddite backlash. We already see this with EV battery fires, despite how much safer and less frequent they are than fires with combustible petrol vehicles.
  - decremental 3y ago
    [dead]
NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
This is a bad headline and it implies more than is actually documented by the journalist. Let's take a look at the true meaning of the word "refute": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/refute https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/refute "Refute" means "To prove something to be false or incorrect." This headline is abusing a proscribed meaning of "refute": "To deny the truth or correctness of something." Cruise has offered no evidence but only a press release in which they make counterclaims. To be fair, SFFD didn't really provide any evidence in their claims, either. So this is simply "he said, she said" until there is concrete sensor evidence to the contrary.
- gsumpster 3y ago
  Cruise did provide video evidence, mentioned in this article, though the contents were not described. A NY Times article on the same subject described the content of the video here (gift link):https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/02/technology/driverless-cars-cruise-san-francisco.html?unlocked_article_code=CgMWn8yRLrWQGNt_ZkA-vGPTBRxTGN876s6zPejnn7m8qGI8BF8a4fXxp2nnpKjT_0npPhtmI1Am0DNmUgEl-F6qSCLHH10eKHKZ6dUvk-p5dcjQPzh3Q94fstZyYrlLiLB0kbAzLnFLiBk8l8Low-j3hjpe7KZEUzzuG6G0WnjhvICv-d67XMEf6j2nd0IkZYuC25_KUGzkuwAT6Fl4kqB463ZE7PpimQ7TJkxcyxDs9LLfRyi2XYnyxKFH1X2Livk6AH1wgfi_GYtyZBK9C29UGkr-6wBV5sbI4XFci9E-VjM549nATd2jR7jSfXXNZGPMMsn_aadReSCjyUy2k-mCtbEf65RCt-Jscwk9Udpo&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/02/technology/driverless-car...
- cwillu 3y ago
  “Cruise showed KRON4 footage from the night of the incident to explain its side of the story. Due to Cruise company policy, the footage was not released for public consumption.”
- isityouyesitsme 3y ago
  Overall, it is shoddy writing. A pet peeve of mine is on display: "The victim suffered critical injuries but died after reaching the hospital." The use of "but" here is confusing. It's the wrong conjunction. The author meant "and," as if to say "there were critical injuries and the outcome you expected was what happened," rather than "there were critical injuries, and contrary to what you would expect to have happened, what you expected to have happened did indeed happen."
jwilk 3y ago
> This content is not available in your country/region. Archived copy: https://web.archive.org/web/20230903010428/https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/cruise-refutes-sffd-claim-that-avs-blocked-ambulance-led-to-victims-death/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230903010428/https://www.kron4...

25 points by mikhael 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

This is bad for both SF Fire Department, and Cruise. Cruise's business is in an area where human life can easily be impacted. This incident, regardless of fault, reminds us of that. It suggests the need for over cautiousness, and American business is not known for that. So Cruise will face enthusiastic critique for its entire existence. SFFD sounds like it's made a mistake, and it too is in the life or death "business". So it will receive an unpleasant audit for this incident. Overall the public is losing, it seems, as this is too chaotic and unsafe a system to be allowed. So we must now step in and regulate.

Hydraulix989 3y ago
Remember, the pedestrian was originally struck by a human driver. No matter how much statistically safer Cruise is than human drivers, there will always be an unfair press scrutiny on individual incidents amid Luddite backlash. We already see this with EV battery fires, despite how much safer and less frequent they are than fires with combustible petrol vehicles.
- decremental 3y ago
  [dead]

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago

This is a bad headline and it implies more than is actually documented by the journalist. Let's take a look at the true meaning of the word "refute": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/refute https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/refute "Refute" means "To prove something to be false or incorrect." This headline is abusing a proscribed meaning of "refute": "To deny the truth or correctness of something." Cruise has offered no evidence but only a press release in which they make counterclaims. To be fair, SFFD didn't really provide any evidence in their claims, either. So this is simply "he said, she said" until there is concrete sensor evidence to the contrary.

gsumpster 3y ago
Cruise did provide video evidence, mentioned in this article, though the contents were not described. A NY Times article on the same subject described the content of the video here (gift link):https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/02/technology/driverless-cars-cruise-san-francisco.html?unlocked_article_code=CgMWn8yRLrWQGNt_ZkA-vGPTBRxTGN876s6zPejnn7m8qGI8BF8a4fXxp2nnpKjT_0npPhtmI1Am0DNmUgEl-F6qSCLHH10eKHKZ6dUvk-p5dcjQPzh3Q94fstZyYrlLiLB0kbAzLnFLiBk8l8Low-j3hjpe7KZEUzzuG6G0WnjhvICv-d67XMEf6j2nd0IkZYuC25_KUGzkuwAT6Fl4kqB463ZE7PpimQ7TJkxcyxDs9LLfRyi2XYnyxKFH1X2Livk6AH1wgfi_GYtyZBK9C29UGkr-6wBV5sbI4XFci9E-VjM549nATd2jR7jSfXXNZGPMMsn_aadReSCjyUy2k-mCtbEf65RCt-Jscwk9Udpo&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/02/technology/driverless-car...
cwillu 3y ago
“Cruise showed KRON4 footage from the night of the incident to explain its side of the story. Due to Cruise company policy, the footage was not released for public consumption.”
isityouyesitsme 3y ago
Overall, it is shoddy writing. A pet peeve of mine is on display: "The victim suffered critical injuries but died after reaching the hospital." The use of "but" here is confusing. It's the wrong conjunction. The author meant "and," as if to say "there were critical injuries and the outcome you expected was what happened," rather than "there were critical injuries, and contrary to what you would expect to have happened, what you expected to have happened did indeed happen."

jwilk 3y ago

> This content is not available in your country/region. Archived copy: https://web.archive.org/web/20230903010428/https://www.kron4.com/news/bay-area/cruise-refutes-sffd-claim-that-avs-blocked-ambulance-led-to-victims-death/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230903010428/https://www.kron4...