4 ms·

Did Cruise release the video, its not clear to me a human driver would be better (other than some textual descriptions of the event)? The (human) person who act

Did Cruise release the video, its not clear to me a human driver would be better (other than some textual descriptions of the event)? The (human) person who actually caused the crash is still at large, and the bay area (SF + Oakland) still continues to one of the municipalities with negligble traffic enforcement [1] and massively dangerous (human) driving behavior [2]. So the city and DMV focussing their efforts on this corner case driving systems seems like dereliction of duty on the City attorney's and DoT's part. [1] https://sfstandard.com/2023/07/01/ask-the-standard-san-francisco-traffic-enforcement/ https://sfstandard.com/2023/07/01/ask-the-standard-san-franc... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUzc15BeAaE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUzc15BeAaE

mips_avatar 3y ago
This woman got dragged 20 feet by the car after the collision, and then the car rolled over her leg and left her pinned to the ground until the fire department came and removed the wheel to get her out. The cruise vehicle wasn't at fault for the initial accident, but the subsequent damage it caused was entirely the fault of the autonomous vehicle. A person would have stopped and helped the pedestrian.
- ironman1478 3y ago
  The person who hit and run the woman in the first place shows this is obviously not true. You think they didn't notice?There was a muni bus who hit a pedestrian a few weeks ago and didn't even notice.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    If the Cruise had hit and run it might have been better than parking on the woman's leg.
    - ironman1478 3y ago
      Except it didn't immediately do that. Cruise released a report today saying that the car actually drove 20 feet and dragged the woman. There is no simple answer as to what to do. It's simply difficult and acting like there are easy answers to this is unproductive and imo not in the spirit of hackernews.
      - tempestn 3y ago
        It's difficult to program an autonomous vehicle to handle this correctly, sure. That doesn't mean an average human driver wouldn't have done better. Of course a human driver wouldn't just keep driving to pull over after hitting a pedestrian and not being able to see where they went.
        smileysteve 3y ago
        In some cultures, they have a custom to ensure whoever you hit dies so that you don't pay disability. And the hit and run driver did just drive off
        imp0cat 3y ago
        Ah, the Chinese way. But it is not something we should be loking forward to.
  - grogenaut 3y ago
    The person who hit and run commuted a felony. Cruise not providing evidence as asked and required by their testing agreement did similar. A muni bus and a car are different. But the big issue is hiding / eliding the data.
    - ironman1478 3y ago
      I agree that hiding data is bad and the company should be punished. I was simply commenting on the fact that people frequently do not stop when running over pedestrians, which the parent comment claimed.
- pj_mukh 3y ago
  “The woman got dragged 20feet” With respect this part is not clear. Only that the woman moved 20feet. The DMV has not made clear whether she moved 20feet from the location of original Collision (ie with the human driver) or she was dragged 20feet as the cruise car kept driving. They’ve let the audience fill in the blanks and we’ve collectively come to the more exciting conclusion.
  - darkerside 3y ago
    I'm pretty sure Cruise's statement worded this intentionally vaguely, and it's natural to assume they are trying to gloss over their responsibility in the most horrific part of the story.
    - KennyBlanken 3y ago
      They had the balls to write "pulling the individual forward"
  - skywhopper 3y ago
    The Cruise statement is what mentions "pulling the pedestrian forward 20 feet" so it's clear she was dragged for at least that distance.
    - pj_mukh 3y ago
      It’s so painfully obvious to me that the solution here is to not having flying humans because of bad drivers that hit and run and not “actually let’s ban autonomous driving” (the city will inevitably come after Waymo next)
      - jfim 3y ago
        Why not both? We shouldn't have flying humans, nor cars rolling over and dragging people.
        pj_mukh 3y ago
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  People get dragged to death under cars with unaware human drivers all the time. I dont think you can definitively say a person would have stopped and helped.
  - infamouscow 3y ago
    A person has the potential to do more than what a Cruise vehicle actually did in the situation.
KennyBlanken 3y ago
Pretty sure a human driver would have done more than what Cruise did, which was...nothing. They didn't even respond to anyone until firefighters covered the vehicle's sensors. > Firefighters obstructed the sensors of the driverless car to alert the Cruise control center. He said representatives from Cruise responded to firefighters and “immediately disabled the car remotely.”
- DeRock 3y ago
  The human driver actually fled the scene. It was a hit and run.
lokar 3y ago
They lied to the DMV, that alone is enough to ban them.
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  Seriously! This! This times a thousand! I get that technology is cool and we love seeing stuff like autonomous cars (and to be clear, where I live, I would say they should be the default because holy shit can people not drive here) but like, this is just not okay. Cruise's cars have a well documented history of disrupting traffic, and additionally, they have been found to: - Not be forthcoming with authorities on releasing information/video - Be misrepresenting the performance of their vehicles to the authorities This is just not acceptable for a company to be doing. This is not how we disrupt industries. You cannot "fake it till you make it" with road safety when building vehicles that traverse roads safely is your business' entire raison d'etre! That's just unacceptable, full stop. And, add to it, Cruise has been given a direct and clear path to resuming operations, which essentially boils down to doing the thing they should've been doing already. Like come on! How much more benevolent can we ask a regulator to be in this scenario? One could argue, frankly, that they're being too kid gloves about a company lying to an organization who's primary goal is ensuring safety about safety!
- zestyping 3y ago
  What was the lie?
  - fudged71 3y ago
    Lie by omission
  - oldgradstudent 3y ago
    They showed a video of the crash without the part where they dragged the pedestrian for 20 feet, claiming it was the full video of the incident. The DMV was not aware of that until notified by another government agency that was investigating the incident.
    - 3y ago

mips_avatar 3y ago

This woman got dragged 20 feet by the car after the collision, and then the car rolled over her leg and left her pinned to the ground until the fire department came and removed the wheel to get her out. The cruise vehicle wasn't at fault for the initial accident, but the subsequent damage it caused was entirely the fault of the autonomous vehicle. A person would have stopped and helped the pedestrian.

ironman1478 3y ago
The person who hit and run the woman in the first place shows this is obviously not true. You think they didn't notice?There was a muni bus who hit a pedestrian a few weeks ago and didn't even notice.
- bombcar 3y ago
  If the Cruise had hit and run it might have been better than parking on the woman's leg.
  - ironman1478 3y ago
    Except it didn't immediately do that. Cruise released a report today saying that the car actually drove 20 feet and dragged the woman. There is no simple answer as to what to do. It's simply difficult and acting like there are easy answers to this is unproductive and imo not in the spirit of hackernews.
    - tempestn 3y ago
      It's difficult to program an autonomous vehicle to handle this correctly, sure. That doesn't mean an average human driver wouldn't have done better. Of course a human driver wouldn't just keep driving to pull over after hitting a pedestrian and not being able to see where they went.
      - smileysteve 3y ago
        In some cultures, they have a custom to ensure whoever you hit dies so that you don't pay disability. And the hit and run driver did just drive off
        imp0cat 3y ago
        Ah, the Chinese way. But it is not something we should be loking forward to.
- grogenaut 3y ago
  The person who hit and run commuted a felony. Cruise not providing evidence as asked and required by their testing agreement did similar. A muni bus and a car are different. But the big issue is hiding / eliding the data.
  - ironman1478 3y ago
    I agree that hiding data is bad and the company should be punished. I was simply commenting on the fact that people frequently do not stop when running over pedestrians, which the parent comment claimed.
pj_mukh 3y ago
“The woman got dragged 20feet” With respect this part is not clear. Only that the woman moved 20feet. The DMV has not made clear whether she moved 20feet from the location of original Collision (ie with the human driver) or she was dragged 20feet as the cruise car kept driving. They’ve let the audience fill in the blanks and we’ve collectively come to the more exciting conclusion.
- darkerside 3y ago
  I'm pretty sure Cruise's statement worded this intentionally vaguely, and it's natural to assume they are trying to gloss over their responsibility in the most horrific part of the story.
  - KennyBlanken 3y ago
    They had the balls to write "pulling the individual forward"
- skywhopper 3y ago
  The Cruise statement is what mentions "pulling the pedestrian forward 20 feet" so it's clear she was dragged for at least that distance.
  - pj_mukh 3y ago
    It’s so painfully obvious to me that the solution here is to not having flying humans because of bad drivers that hit and run and not “actually let’s ban autonomous driving” (the city will inevitably come after Waymo next)
    - jfim 3y ago
      Why not both? We shouldn't have flying humans, nor cars rolling over and dragging people.
      - pj_mukh 3y ago
s1artibartfast 3y ago
People get dragged to death under cars with unaware human drivers all the time. I dont think you can definitively say a person would have stopped and helped.
- infamouscow 3y ago
  A person has the potential to do more than what a Cruise vehicle actually did in the situation.

KennyBlanken 3y ago

Pretty sure a human driver would have done more than what Cruise did, which was...nothing. They didn't even respond to anyone until firefighters covered the vehicle's sensors. > Firefighters obstructed the sensors of the driverless car to alert the Cruise control center. He said representatives from Cruise responded to firefighters and “immediately disabled the car remotely.”

DeRock 3y ago
The human driver actually fled the scene. It was a hit and run.

lokar 3y ago

They lied to the DMV, that alone is enough to ban them.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
Seriously! This! This times a thousand! I get that technology is cool and we love seeing stuff like autonomous cars (and to be clear, where I live, I would say they should be the default because holy shit can people not drive here) but like, this is just not okay. Cruise's cars have a well documented history of disrupting traffic, and additionally, they have been found to: - Not be forthcoming with authorities on releasing information/video - Be misrepresenting the performance of their vehicles to the authorities This is just not acceptable for a company to be doing. This is not how we disrupt industries. You cannot "fake it till you make it" with road safety when building vehicles that traverse roads safely is your business' entire raison d'etre! That's just unacceptable, full stop. And, add to it, Cruise has been given a direct and clear path to resuming operations, which essentially boils down to doing the thing they should've been doing already. Like come on! How much more benevolent can we ask a regulator to be in this scenario? One could argue, frankly, that they're being too kid gloves about a company lying to an organization who's primary goal is ensuring safety about safety!
zestyping 3y ago
What was the lie?
- fudged71 3y ago
  Lie by omission
- oldgradstudent 3y ago
  They showed a video of the crash without the part where they dragged the pedestrian for 20 feet, claiming it was the full video of the incident. The DMV was not aware of that until notified by another government agency that was investigating the incident.
  - 3y ago