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

61–70 of 166 posts

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

#61

Post by [deleted] »

paul7986 wrote: post #45
statop wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok so the guys and gals who we pay to save your life are saying they're getting in the way. But MLRoboCorporation(TM)(c)(r) says fuck those guys, they can go around? I think I'll side with the humans on this one, let them take control of the vehicle. I don't care how much money Kyle Vogt loses to car theft, that's not my problem. Clearly this industry needs to get regulated hard.

oh no dont speak ill of Ycombinator's startup bros. You will get downvoted! Loved Justin.TV and how they helped shake up the media industrty up ... all the start-up bro ethos followed there successfully helped kill and bring new media business models (all the Frasier, Seinfeld, etc 24/7 channels on Justin.TV). Awesome! Applying that same killing it here theory (Cruise trying to rapidly .. rapidly expand in many, many…

[deleted]

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

#62

Post by perihelions »

- "blocked a San Francisco ambulance from getting a pedestrian hit by a vehicle"

I'm taking no "position" on either "side" of the debate, but I feel it's noteworthy that a *human-driven* car killed a pedestrian (seriously?) here, and that fact is utterly banal and completely unremarkable to the authors—and to us. AI cars are still highly flawed and kill people. Human-driven cars are highly flawed, probably more flawed, and kill way more people. This is sort of a trolley problem, and we suck at solving those.

Because: incompetent killer humans are a diffuse force of nature; incompetent killer AI's are a centralized, attributable malefactor. We humans love identifiable malefactors, evildoers; love identifying and spotlighting and ostracizing them. It's a honed evolutionary trait. We've no atavistic instinct for the opposite, utilitarianism—for minimizing harm through "rational" (?) number-crunching, even where it conflicts with "obvious" (?) morality. Should we? Or is the other side of the trolley switch the correct one?

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

#63

Post by phpisthebest »

statop wrote: post #30
smugma wrote: post #3

I think SFFD is rightfully worried about robotaxis but this doesn’t seem to be the case. When cameras are recording everything, you can’t just make up facts. “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 d…

Ok so the guys and gals who we pay to save your life are saying they're getting in the way. But MLRoboCorporation(TM)(c)(r) says fuck those guys, they can go around? I think I'll side with the humans on this one, let them take control of the vehicle. I don't care how much money Kyle Vogt loses to car theft, that's not my problem. Clearly this industry needs to get regulated hard.

So you will just always defer to public safety officials for everything they want and desire in the name of that safety?

That seems like it would be bad idea

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

#64

Post by Clent »

robswc wrote: post #48
38 wrote: post #21

"Throughout the entire duration the AV is stopped, traffic remains unblocked and flowing to the right of the AV," a Cruise spokesperson said in a statement. "The ambulance behind the AV had a clear path to pass the AV as other vehicles, including another ambulance, proceeded to do." Cruise seems to be ignorant of the law here. the law is: YOU GET OUT OF THE WAY of emergency vehicles, period. unless you are "landlocke…

I do think Cruise's responses to stuck cars needs work but problems with emergency vehicles and drivers happens all the time. I remember an ambulance was right behind me at an intersection. The right turning lane was free but it was right behind me. I got really uncomfortable because I had 0 idea what to do, if I was supposed to basically break the law and go into the intersection on red so that it could get by. Afte…

You did the wrong thing. You should have moved to right.

It's not your responsibility to predict where the ambulance wants to go or do the wrong thing because everyone else is doing the wrong thing.

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

#65

Post by phpisthebest »

annexrichmond wrote: post #41

We can argue all day about whether Cruise was in the wrong here, but the fact is, with autonomous cars becoming more common, this kind of situation is going to happen - an autonomous car blocking a vehicle in an emergency - and protocols/regulations need to be in place for handling these situations.

Like with most things autonomous cars my question would be what is the over/under on how autonomous cars compare to the human population

because I see Human drivers blocking emergency vehicles all the time...

So the question is not, imo, if autonomous cars will be perfect, all the time. But if they are better than human drivers.

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

#66

Post by pjscott »

robswc wrote: post #48
38 wrote: post #21

"Throughout the entire duration the AV is stopped, traffic remains unblocked and flowing to the right of the AV," a Cruise spokesperson said in a statement. "The ambulance behind the AV had a clear path to pass the AV as other vehicles, including another ambulance, proceeded to do." Cruise seems to be ignorant of the law here. the law is: YOU GET OUT OF THE WAY of emergency vehicles, period. unless you are "landlocke…

I do think Cruise's responses to stuck cars needs work but problems with emergency vehicles and drivers happens all the time. I remember an ambulance was right behind me at an intersection. The right turning lane was free but it was right behind me. I got really uncomfortable because I had 0 idea what to do, if I was supposed to basically break the law and go into the intersection on red so that it could get by. Afte…

Yeah, this is the thing that bothers me about people's response to robo-taxis. They're not compared to human drivers, who make mistakes all the time. They're compared to a theoretical ideal of perfection, and people get outraged when they inevitably fall short. The problems with the status quo are easy to overlook, just a normal part of life that everybody has come to accept -- but the problems with any attempted change are headline news.

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

#67

Post by joshribakoff »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #33
prosody wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term FUD makes sense in low-risk applications where the benefit of the doubt ought to be given. In safety-critical contexts it should be completely reversed, and confidence, certainty and trust should be looked at extremely critically.

Human drivers kill 30,000+ per year in the US alone. Development of an automated driving option is a safety-critical context, and that requires real-world deployment experience. The precautionary principle is not what is called for here.

I believe you’re citing a stat corresponding to the number of traffic fatalities. That doesn’t mean in all of those cases one person killed another as you implied. For example if someone dies after drunk driving and crashes themselves into a tree that doesn’t seem right to say “the driver killed someone”

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

#68

Post by giantg2 »

blincoln wrote: post #29
smugma wrote: post #3

I think SFFD is rightfully worried about robotaxis but this doesn’t seem to be the case. When cameras are recording everything, you can’t just make up facts. “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 d…

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.

"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.

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

#69

Post by joshribakoff »

aaomidi wrote: post #51
macinjosh wrote: post #42

I don't understand all the debate. The _law_ is that when an emergency vehicle is behind you, you pull over to the side and make as much room as you can in the center of the road. The vehicle did not move out of the way, the company should be penalized heavily, as would a human driver.

The city should be penalized heavily for forcing people to be beta testers.

The city has no regulatory authority, and unfortunately the DMV (a state entity) largely allows them to self regulate.

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

#70

Post by joshribakoff »

paul7986 wrote: post #39

Shocker and I'm not seeing any such issues with Waymo cars and or am I missing those headlines? Waymo has been at this game and working on their tech since around 2007. Cruise definitely not as long ... no robo AI car company should be allowed on roads until they have proven themselves like Waymo has .. it's irresponsible and proving deadly like Uber's rush to do the same. Start-up bros killing it yet in this instanc…

As a driver in SF ive been stuck behind Waymo cars even as construction workers waved them to go with exaggerated hand motions. Was stuck for several minutes before hazard lights turned on and then shortly later it moved, i assume a remote human assistant got involved. Same with zoox, they have delayed me commuting to work. I want them banned/put back safety drivers
Post reply on HN