Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SF Fire Dept.: Person Dies After Cruise Robotaxi Blocked Ambulance

sfstandard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 166 posts

Re: SF Fire Dept.: Person Dies After Cruise Robotaxi Blocked Ambulance

#11

Post by sdflhasjd »

notatoad wrote: post #6
capableweb wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “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…

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.

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.

Re: SF Fire Dept.: Person Dies After Cruise Robotaxi Blocked Ambulance

#12

Post by 01100011 »

Title seems misleading and Cruise doesn't seem to be responsible for the death, but I have to think that Cruise needs a better system for responding to emergencies like this. Do they have remote operators who can assume control of vehicles when the vehicles are confused or become immobile? What is their maximum response time? Is there a mechanism for people near the vehicle to signal Cruise for assistance, like an external button or even a QR code/phone number to report issues?

Re: SF Fire Dept.: Person Dies After Cruise Robotaxi Blocked Ambulance

#13

Post by zootboy »

coding123 wrote: post #7
reed1234 wrote: post #2

While it’s bad that the ambulance was blocked for 90 seconds, the title makes it seem like the person died because the ambulance was blocked- which is uncertain.

Title says after not because...

That feels like trying to get by on a technicality. The casual reader would reasonably interpret "after" to imply some causation the way this headline is written.

Re: SF Fire Dept.: Person Dies After Cruise Robotaxi Blocked Ambulance

#15

Post by statop »

sshine wrote: post #8

Until further investigated, this is FUD.

It isn't FUD, it's dumb autonomous vehicles won't get out of the way. Just force them to allow human intervention, a person gets in and moves it. What's the big deal? It shouldn't even be restricted to emergency personnel.

If people steal them Cruise can file charges and consider it an expense of doing business.

Re: SF Fire Dept.: Person Dies After Cruise Robotaxi Blocked Ambulance

#16

Post by samtho »

YuukiRey wrote: post #9
coding123 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Title says after not because...

I’m not a linguist but this use of after seems to at least imply a link. Strictly speaking it’s only the temporal relation of two facts but I’d reckon that a lot of people will read this after in the sense of because.

Most journalism tip-toes around this line by declining to assert direct cause. They use terms like “after” instead of “because” as it specifically does not imply a link, only the order in which two events (possibly related) occurred. Others you might see, “experts say” and “possible link”.

I’m not commenting on the ethical implications of this usage, only the specific mechanisms they use to avoid assigning cause in the event that they end up wrong.

Re: SF Fire Dept.: Person Dies After Cruise Robotaxi Blocked Ambulance

#17

Post by pests »

YuukiRey wrote: post #9
coding123 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Title says after not because...

I’m not a linguist but this use of after seems to at least imply a link. Strictly speaking it’s only the temporal relation of two facts but I’d reckon that a lot of people will read this after in the sense of because.

I agree.

The intent is the link them together.

"Man dies after brushing teeth in morning." <- Might be true, but completely useless and irrelevant.

Re: SF Fire Dept.: Person Dies After Cruise Robotaxi Blocked Ambulance

#18

Post by Eisenstein »

The current talking point regarding safety of autonomous vehicles as compared to human driven ones is a red herring. The question we should be asking is if we should be investing so many resources into cementing reliance on cars. It is super convenient to jump in an automated taxi and get driven to your destination -- but we all know that people in aggregate pick convenience overwhelmingly even when the inconvenient choices are objectively better.

Is it good to build fleets of multi-ton individual person movers that still require an enormous amount of infrastructure and energy, and make cities worse for everyone not in a car at any moment?

Regardless of human vs ai, roads are a lot safer with fewer cars on them.

Re: SF Fire Dept.: Person Dies After Cruise Robotaxi Blocked Ambulance

#20

Post by Rapzid »

YuukiRey wrote: post #9
coding123 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Title says after not because...

I’m not a linguist but this use of after seems to at least imply a link. Strictly speaking it’s only the temporal relation of two facts but I’d reckon that a lot of people will read this after in the sense of because.

Yeah when was this, Augh 14th?

> 160k People Die in USA After Cruise Robotaxi...

Post reply on HN