3 ms·

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 ag

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.
  - Waterluvian 3y ago
    Yeah, not going to argue the lightning rod of a headline even if it was careful not to actually say “Cruise killed a man.”
jedberg 3y ago
If there was a reason that the ambulance didn't move right, then wouldn't that same reason exist preventing the taxi from moving right? Even moreso since they don't have lights and sirens like the ambulance?
- shepardrtc 3y ago
  In many places it's illegal to pass on the right. I assume the driver probably didn't want to get disciplined.
giantg2 3y ago
"Maybe traffic was moving so quickly that they'd have to accelerate hard and risk hurting the patient," This shouldn't be an issue - traffic is required to yield. "Regardless, Cruise's vehicle clearly was at fault for not getting out of the way." Yes, at fault for not getting out of the way. The article is a little misleading with it's insinuating that the patient death was somehow related.
- rafram 3y ago
  > traffic is required to yield. And traffic is required to yield to me when I step into the road, but I still wouldn’t start crossing if I saw a car coming with no sign of stopping.
  - giantg2 3y ago
    Yeah, you don't have lights, sirens, and a large vehicle either. Really should be a non-issue in this instance.

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.
- Waterluvian 3y ago
  Yeah, not going to argue the lightning rod of a headline even if it was careful not to actually say “Cruise killed a man.”

jedberg 3y ago

If there was a reason that the ambulance didn't move right, then wouldn't that same reason exist preventing the taxi from moving right? Even moreso since they don't have lights and sirens like the ambulance?

shepardrtc 3y ago
In many places it's illegal to pass on the right. I assume the driver probably didn't want to get disciplined.

giantg2 3y ago

"Maybe traffic was moving so quickly that they'd have to accelerate hard and risk hurting the patient," This shouldn't be an issue - traffic is required to yield. "Regardless, Cruise's vehicle clearly was at fault for not getting out of the way." Yes, at fault for not getting out of the way. The article is a little misleading with it's insinuating that the patient death was somehow related.

rafram 3y ago
> traffic is required to yield. And traffic is required to yield to me when I step into the road, but I still wouldn’t start crossing if I saw a car coming with no sign of stopping.
- giantg2 3y ago
  Yeah, you don't have lights, sirens, and a large vehicle either. Really should be a non-issue in this instance.