3 ms·
Nah, the reason someone needed an ambulance is totally immaterial here. A person had life-threatening injuries, and Cruise prevented that person from receiving
by spondylosaurus 3y ago
Nah, the reason someone needed an ambulance is totally immaterial here. A person had life-threatening injuries, and Cruise prevented that person from receiving critical treatment. Counterfactually, that person would most likely be alive if the Cruise taxi hadn't been on the street that day.
- gkoberger 3y agoWhat makes you believe this? According to the videos, there were multiple ambulances on the scene and the injured person was on their way to the hospital within 90 seconds. It’s very likely both are true: Cruise made things more difficult, but didn’t cause enough of an issue to materially change the outcome. Source: https://sfstandard.com/2023/09/01/person-dies-cruise-robotaxi-blocks-san-francisco-ambulance/ https://sfstandard.com/2023/09/01/person-dies-cruise-robotax...
- jinkiesScoob 3y agoUnbelieveable that you buy that. If Cruise wants to clear this up they can post the video. I'm gonna believe the first responders here who do this for a living over a corporate PR mouthpiece. That journalist could have signed a non disparagement contract to see the video or just been paid off. Cruise has the video, there is no body. Post it. Anything else is bullshit.
- dehrmann 3y ago> Counterfactually, that person would most likely be alive if the Cruise taxi hadn't been on the street that day. That's a big statement. It sounds like it delayed the ambulance up to 90 seconds. 90 seconds can make a difference, but the patient died "later," and from pretty severe injuries.