4 ms·

I think SFFD is rightfully worried about robotaxis but this doesn’t seem to be the case. When cameras are recording everything, you can’t just make up facts. “

by smugma 3y ago

I think SFFD is rightfully worried about robotaxis but this doesn’t seem to be the case. When cameras are recording everything, you can’t just make up facts. “The video captured by Cruise showed that the ambulance parked behind the Cruise and did not attempt to pass the robotaxi in the rightmost unblocked lane. Instead, responders moved a firetruck to allow the ambulance to pass on the left. The video, which Cruise declined to share publicly, indicates that 90 seconds elapsed between the patient being put on the stretcher and the ambulance leaving the scene.”

capableweb 3y ago
> “The video captured by Cruise showed that the ambulance parked behind the Cruise and did not attempt to pass the robotaxi in the rightmost unblocked lane. Instead, responders moved a firetruck to allow the ambulance to pass on the left. The video, which Cruise declined to share publicly, indicates that 90 seconds elapsed between the patient being put on the stretcher and the ambulance leaving the scene.” Why isn't the video shared if it proves they're innocent? Smells strange.
- notatoad 3y ago
  if you have video of somebody being put on a stretcher before they died, it's best not to share that too widely. for legal reasons as well as just general humanity.
  - bink 3y ago
    They don't need to publish it on a website. They could release it to the local news orgs that handle this type of video daily. It's not hard to blur things that would be offensive.
    - minwcnt5 3y ago
      Isn't that exactly what they've done? Forbes, NBC, KRON4, SFStandard, and probably other news orgs have all reviewed the video.
      - bink 3y ago
        I'm not sure how many orgs have seen it. I've heard of two and we don't have any way of knowing if they saw an edited or full copy and from all available angles. They apparently haven't been allowed to make a copy of it and broadcast it so we can make up our own minds.
  - sdflhasjd 3y ago
    From the article, it implies the patient wasn't recorded on video. > The video, which Cruise declined to share publicly [...] does not capture the patient being loaded onto the ambulance.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  > A Cruise spokesperson said the company offered to share video footage with San Francisco officials. As of Saturday morning, Cruise said, city officials had not reviewed the footage. It was unclear why. They offered to share it with the city officials, apparently. There’s no strange smell in the fact that they didn’t decide to share it with the general public. I mean, for all we know it might show the emergency services making an error in the heat of the moment and they might be holding it back to preserve their relationship with the city. (I’m not saying this is likely, just saying there are plenty of reasons that holding the video might be more tactful than nefarious).
- dehrmann 3y ago
  > Video and other surveillance data gathered by Cruise and reviewed by The Standard The SF Standard might have a tech bias due to its funding, but giving them access and offering the city access seems reasonable enough to not suspect anything fishy.
blincoln 3y ago
I think the safe default assumption is that if the ambulance driver didn't use the right lane, there was probably a good reason. Clearly the firetruck driver agreed with them. Maybe traffic was moving so quickly that they'd have to accelerate hard and risk hurting the patient, or they were concerned about getting rear-ended. Regardless, Cruise's vehicle clearly was at fault for not getting out of the way.
- Retric 3y ago
  Assuming the Ambulance driver was competent, the good reason was likely the patient not being secured and thus they wouldn’t have left for a significant fraction of those 90 seconds in either case. The cruse driver could still have slowed their exit by a few seconds even without being a significant obstacle. The issue is ambulances encounter a lot of cars on the way to and from an accident, so a few seconds per car can add up to a significant delay overall.
- Waterluvian 3y ago
  Drives me mad when there’s armchair bickering about “well you could have just done X.” Doesn’t matter. If there’s a law about getting out of the way, offering maximum space and choices to emergency vehicles, and you didn’t do that, you failed and you broke the law. One can definitely bicker about the details, but it doesn’t change anything about the fact that the vehicle failed to obey the law.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    The fact that there was traffic flowing to the right seems to indicate that the scenario was such that people weren’t stopping and pulling over.
  - threatofrain 3y ago
    > Doesn’t matter. If there’s a law about getting out of the way, offering maximum space and choices to emergency vehicles, and you didn’t do that, you failed and you broke the law. Then we can talk about whether the vehicle operator failed to obey the law, but I think we're talking about something far more serious, which is whether Cruise indirectly killed a man. In determining whether Cruise has moral responsibility over this death, it is then natural for citizens to look over the video footage and ask what's going on.
statop 3y ago
Ok so the guys and gals who we pay to save your life are saying they're getting in the way. But MLRoboCorporation(TM)(c)(r) says fuck those guys, they can go around? I think I'll side with the humans on this one, let them take control of the vehicle. I don't care how much money Kyle Vogt loses to car theft, that's not my problem. Clearly this industry needs to get regulated hard.
- paul7986 3y ago
  oh no dont speak ill of Ycombinator's startup bros. You will get downvoted! Loved Justin.TV and how they helped shake up the media industrty up ... all the start-up bro ethos followed there successfully helped kill and bring new media business models (all the Frasier, Seinfeld, etc 24/7 channels on Justin.TV). Awesome! Applying that same killing it here theory (Cruise trying to rapidly .. rapidly expand in many, many cities while Waymo with its WAY better track record as of late August is expanding to only one city .. Austin) is just down right deadly as we seen with Travis Kalanick's version of trying to kill it and in turn killing a pedestrian. Who cares if you kill business and in turn new business come from that .. that's awesome but killing people to kill it and win this race. Irresponsible and disgusting and again they're expanding to 5 to ten more cities (Nashville, DC, Austin, etc, etc) yet causing chaos in San Fran (Waymo is not & they have been working on this tech since 2007).
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  So you will just always defer to public safety officials for everything they want and desire in the name of that safety? That seems like it would be bad idea
  - statop 3y ago
    This is a strawman, try again.
flandish 3y ago
90 seconds is fast. It’s often longer than that. Besides safety straps, there’s leads, transfer from scoop/backboard to the full stretcher, bags, goo, more secondary vitals to take..

by smugma 3y ago

capableweb 3y ago

> “The video captured by Cruise showed that the ambulance parked behind the Cruise and did not attempt to pass the robotaxi in the rightmost unblocked lane. Instead, responders moved a firetruck to allow the ambulance to pass on the left. The video, which Cruise declined to share publicly, indicates that 90 seconds elapsed between the patient being put on the stretcher and the ambulance leaving the scene.” Why isn't the video shared if it proves they're innocent? Smells strange.

notatoad 3y ago
if you have video of somebody being put on a stretcher before they died, it's best not to share that too widely. for legal reasons as well as just general humanity.
- bink 3y ago
  They don't need to publish it on a website. They could release it to the local news orgs that handle this type of video daily. It's not hard to blur things that would be offensive.
  - minwcnt5 3y ago
    Isn't that exactly what they've done? Forbes, NBC, KRON4, SFStandard, and probably other news orgs have all reviewed the video.
    - bink 3y ago
      I'm not sure how many orgs have seen it. I've heard of two and we don't have any way of knowing if they saw an edited or full copy and from all available angles. They apparently haven't been allowed to make a copy of it and broadcast it so we can make up our own minds.
- sdflhasjd 3y ago
  From the article, it implies the patient wasn't recorded on video. > The video, which Cruise declined to share publicly [...] does not capture the patient being loaded onto the ambulance.
bee_rider 3y ago
> A Cruise spokesperson said the company offered to share video footage with San Francisco officials. As of Saturday morning, Cruise said, city officials had not reviewed the footage. It was unclear why. They offered to share it with the city officials, apparently. There’s no strange smell in the fact that they didn’t decide to share it with the general public. I mean, for all we know it might show the emergency services making an error in the heat of the moment and they might be holding it back to preserve their relationship with the city. (I’m not saying this is likely, just saying there are plenty of reasons that holding the video might be more tactful than nefarious).
dehrmann 3y ago
> Video and other surveillance data gathered by Cruise and reviewed by The Standard The SF Standard might have a tech bias due to its funding, but giving them access and offering the city access seems reasonable enough to not suspect anything fishy.

blincoln 3y ago

I think the safe default assumption is that if the ambulance driver didn't use the right lane, there was probably a good reason. Clearly the firetruck driver agreed with them. Maybe traffic was moving so quickly that they'd have to accelerate hard and risk hurting the patient, or they were concerned about getting rear-ended. Regardless, Cruise's vehicle clearly was at fault for not getting out of the way.

Retric 3y ago
Assuming the Ambulance driver was competent, the good reason was likely the patient not being secured and thus they wouldn’t have left for a significant fraction of those 90 seconds in either case. The cruse driver could still have slowed their exit by a few seconds even without being a significant obstacle. The issue is ambulances encounter a lot of cars on the way to and from an accident, so a few seconds per car can add up to a significant delay overall.
Waterluvian 3y ago
Drives me mad when there’s armchair bickering about “well you could have just done X.” Doesn’t matter. If there’s a law about getting out of the way, offering maximum space and choices to emergency vehicles, and you didn’t do that, you failed and you broke the law. One can definitely bicker about the details, but it doesn’t change anything about the fact that the vehicle failed to obey the law.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  The fact that there was traffic flowing to the right seems to indicate that the scenario was such that people weren’t stopping and pulling over.
- threatofrain 3y ago
  > Doesn’t matter. If there’s a law about getting out of the way, offering maximum space and choices to emergency vehicles, and you didn’t do that, you failed and you broke the law. Then we can talk about whether the vehicle operator failed to obey the law, but I think we're talking about something far more serious, which is whether Cruise indirectly killed a man. In determining whether Cruise has moral responsibility over this death, it is then natural for citizens to look over the video footage and ask what's going on.

statop 3y ago

Ok so the guys and gals who we pay to save your life are saying they're getting in the way. But MLRoboCorporation(TM)(c)(r) says fuck those guys, they can go around? I think I'll side with the humans on this one, let them take control of the vehicle. I don't care how much money Kyle Vogt loses to car theft, that's not my problem. Clearly this industry needs to get regulated hard.

paul7986 3y ago
oh no dont speak ill of Ycombinator's startup bros. You will get downvoted! Loved Justin.TV and how they helped shake up the media industrty up ... all the start-up bro ethos followed there successfully helped kill and bring new media business models (all the Frasier, Seinfeld, etc 24/7 channels on Justin.TV). Awesome! Applying that same killing it here theory (Cruise trying to rapidly .. rapidly expand in many, many cities while Waymo with its WAY better track record as of late August is expanding to only one city .. Austin) is just down right deadly as we seen with Travis Kalanick's version of trying to kill it and in turn killing a pedestrian. Who cares if you kill business and in turn new business come from that .. that's awesome but killing people to kill it and win this race. Irresponsible and disgusting and again they're expanding to 5 to ten more cities (Nashville, DC, Austin, etc, etc) yet causing chaos in San Fran (Waymo is not & they have been working on this tech since 2007).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
phpisthebest 3y ago
So you will just always defer to public safety officials for everything they want and desire in the name of that safety? That seems like it would be bad idea
- statop 3y ago
  This is a strawman, try again.

flandish 3y ago

90 seconds is fast. It’s often longer than that. Besides safety straps, there’s leads, transfer from scoop/backboard to the full stretcher, bags, goo, more secondary vitals to take..