4 ms·

> “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. Ins

> “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.

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.