7 ms·
A bus driver killed a man, the city blamed tech
- femiagbabiaka 3y agoWhere's the video that contradicts the first responders account? Not casting aspersions, I've just looked through this article, linked tweets, etc. and I can't find it.
- ChrisMarshallNY 3y agoI suspect that you'd need to go to Cruise, for that. I suspect they have their own reasons for not publishing it on YT.
- femiagbabiaka 3y agoI see, good point. Seems like a shame -- even the publishing of an edited video (to leave out any inappropriate content) would be the best antidote to lies in the media.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- more_corn 3y agoBecause the cruise vehicle is sitting in the middle of the street blocking the road while an emergency vehicle tries to get by?
- jffry 3y agoI found this report [1] from NBC Bay Area, which states that Cruise would not release the video "But NBC Bay Area was able to review a nearly 13 minute video which is purportedly the incident in question. It appears to show what the company describes, including the ambulance managing to squeeze by the stopped Cruise car." (Reading between the lines: I'm assuming the news station was able to review footage that is not from Cruise (dashcam from a cop car? security camera?), and are being circumspect about even describing their source to protect whoever gave them access) [1] https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/cruise-pushes-back-claims-sf-fire-department/3309336/ https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/cruise-pushes-back-cla...
- ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago> the takeaway for journalists here is clear: be skeptical of your sources, triple-check your facts, and don’t ever assume that your colleagues are doing the same. That should be the first thing they teach you in Journalism 101, these days. I get sick of reading news stories that are all the same AP story, with different ads around it.
- gabereiser 3y agoIt’s not journalism anymore, it’s visits to your ad riddled pages. Regardless of what truth you post. That’s what it’s become now. That’s web journalism. “I heard it on TikTok” is next. There are a few institutions trying to keep it dignified but it’s become a bazaar.
- slg 3y ago>It’s not journalism anymore, The "anymore" there means something changed. I don't think there was ever a time in which journalists did not regularly print statements from officials like police and firefighters as fact not worthy of questioning. Sometimes we get into a mindset that everything is getting worse when in reality it is just that we are now more aware of how bad it has always been.
- bombcar 3y agoThere are certain things that are noticeable worse now; sometime in the last decade or so it became respectable to print news articles that boil down to: "Someone on Twitter said X" Which is next to useless, you can find someone saying anything on Twitter.
- slg 3y agoNewspapers have been dedicating space to that sort of thing for literally centuries. Reprinting an angry tweet from some rando isn't much different than printing an angry letter to the editor from some rando.
- xigency 3y agoKind of funny that it is assumed that a human-operated vehicle would be more prompt in getting out of the way. Yesterday, walking in my city I saw an ambulance stuck at an intersection for over a minute because of confused drivers and a police vehicle blocking the road. I think the fact that the vehicles stop is better. Emergency vehicles can use any lane even for opposite traffic - so go around them. Meanwhile, Teslas seem to target emergency vehicles for ramming at max speed.
- living_room_pc 3y ago> Kind of funny that it is assumed that a human-operated vehicle would be more prompt in getting out of the way. Honestly I think it is silly to assume not. People (in general) have a pretty good intuition if EMS is coming their way. Beyond that, this is a commercial service that is to be rolled out en-masse, it has to be better than the average human or else you will have lawsuits left and right. > I think the fact that the vehicles stop is better. Emergency vehicles can use any lane even for opposite traffic - so go around them. That is not a tenable solution.
- xigency 3y agoAgree to disagree. Many people do not realize they should move at all when there are sirens and lights, even directly behind them. And a stationary vehicle is quite predictable. It seems highly unlikely a fleet of self driving vehicles could block all oncoming and opposing lanes of traffic. But what do I know. I’m just some guy.
- yieldcrv 3y agoAnyone that’s been on the ground in SF, at cafes, beer gardens, barbershops and any housing protest knows that this is just a symptom A knee jerk boiling over of general disdain of their mismanaged corporate technocracy with a nominal standing committee
- xigency 3y agoSounds like the same old NIMBYs upset that their rising wealth is tied to people making waves.
- tqi 3y agoI genuinely have no idea what any of that means. What is a symptom what?
- yieldcrv 3y agoa symptom of a disdain towards tech wealth, rapid changes, and mostly inequality viewed through a juvenile and narrow lens from people on the left side of the wealth bell curve there
- sitkack 3y agoBig words but a lack of empathy paint a depressing picture
- yieldcrv 3y agowhat words would you use to convey the same message, if you were
- P_I_Staker 3y agoIt's the message that's the problem lol
- yieldcrv 3y ago
- hackernewds 3y ago[flagged]
- muglug 3y ago> Unions have a history of corruption So do many large corporations > not driving benefits for the working class while crushing businesses This also describes a number of monopolistic companies > It is a travesty that the Biden administration is encouraging their proliferation The Biden administration also promotes business interests at home and abroad.
- trust_bt_verify 3y agoWhere was the biden administration mentioned in The article? Is this just a troll account?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- jsd1982 3y agoDid they _really_ need to call out that the man (victim) was homeless? Is that a significant identifier important to the story?
- justrealist 3y agoIf you have lived in SF, you understand the context this adds to the situation.
- PlunderBunny 3y agoThen couldn’t there be more detail that would allow those of us who haven’t lived in SF to understand it too?
- bombcar 3y agoThe subtext is that he deserved to die, I assume. (Which is a bit sarcastic, perhaps, but people generally value the homeless less on various axis, whether they want to admit it or not, because when you hear "bad thing happened to man" you immediately want to know if that man could have been you, once you learn he was homeless the panic reaction subsides.)
- dmitrygr 3y agoYes. Happy to help you understand. Many homeless in SF are actually very mentally ill. They sometimes jump in front of traffic. This has happened to me a few times driving in SF. So the implication is that the bus driver may not at all have been at fault.
- justrealist 3y agoYeah exactly. I'm not saying anyone deserved to die; the homeless in SF are basically not autonomous agents anymore. Right or wrong, it shifts it in my mind from "bus driver is at fault" to "nobody is at fault" (except the city that encourages themn to them stay drugged and on the streets).
- djohnston 3y agoI was struck by the anti AV attitude and poor arguments put forth on the original post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37371539 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37371539 From a presumably technical audience it was disappointing to read through those takes.
- hnis4fascists 3y ago[dead]
- hnisforfascists 3y ago[dead]
- alasdair_ 3y ago>On August 14, at around 11 pm, a homeless man was crossing a street in San Francisco’s South of Market neighborhood when he was hit by a bus. Why does it matter if the man was homeless? "a duplex-owning man was crossing a street" would sound silly so why does the man's lack of home need to be mentioned?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- DiggyJohnson 3y agoI think the additional context is fine. It's only an issue if you're sensitive to the word "homeless" and see the description as demeaning. Otherwise, it's additional.
- Supermancho 3y ago> Otherwise, it's additional. Why didn't they add his hair color, since it's additional? At least they told us his gender...so that's also additional. What about his political views? It's nitpicking minor details, but that's often the problem with marginalized groups. It's subtly reinforced.
- bombcar 3y agoThey could add his race and it'd electrify the discussion for large swaths of the population!
- signatoremo 3y agoI’m sure in that case someone sensitive to that particular detail would ask a similar question to yours, because they would feel similarly outraged.
- Supermancho 3y ago> they would feel similarly outraged. That's not fair. Charitable interpretation would not ascribe feelings to other posters. Even if it were true, it's irrelevant to the issue I have pointed out. Let's break it down. Is the "homeless" detail an addition that is specifically due to the Friedman's (or the hosting site's) particular leanings? Is it responsible (staying impartial) to point it out, given the political climate of the area? Is it the slippery slope of an implication that it was "just a homeless man and these things happen to them"? Can Friedman assume that readership with below average intelligence will incorporate the nuance of the tragedy, without the implication? > I’m sure in that case someone sensitive to that particular detail would ask a similar question to yours I don't understand why you are sure about this. Good luck with whatever.
- more_corn 3y agoTo be clear. A cruise vehicle DID block emergency responders’ access to the scene right?
- partdavid 3y agoThe article is written as some kind of victory lap over misinformation but as far as I can tell, the only information provided is that: - A man was struck by a Muni bus - A paramedic on the scene claimed that a Cruise AV delayed transportation to the hospital (not access to the scene) - Video shows a Cruise vehicle stopped in a traffic lane and not moving to the right (but we don't see the video, so we don't know if that means it blocked anything, or if it was the "wrong" thing to do) - The new report says that the Fire Chief did not "attribute" the death to the Cruise AV, and specifically calls out that this is in contrast to assumptions made by press outlets in their misinterpretation of the initial paramedic's incident report. My interpretation is that there is some disagreement over whether the Cruise vehicle actually "blocked" anything, and that the final report determined that it either didn't cause any delay at all, or that whatever delay it caused didn't matter to the outcome, in contrast to the opinion of the paramedic. The article is written in such a heightened, sensitive way, it's tough to find the actual information, which is unfortunate. It's not journalistic or anything, it's commentary.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hnis4fascists 3y ago[dead]
- lotsoweiners 3y agoQ1