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

141–150 of 166 posts

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

#141

Post by Gigachad »

spondylosaurus wrote: post #84
slg wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an excellent point. There are two independent causes to this person's death. 1. A human driver grievously injured a pedestrian 2. An AI driver delayed medical care for the injured pedestrian That person is potentially still alive if 2 doesn't happen. They are certainly still alive if 1 doesn't happen. Therefore, 1 deserves more of the blame here. Considering these are two independent causes, we can still be u…

I disagree that 1 deserves more of the blame here—a blocked ambulance is blocked from attending to all medical emergencies, not just medical emergencies caused by (human-powered) car accidents. If the robotaxi had blocked the ambulance from reaching someone who'd just had a stroke, blame would rest 100% on the robotaxi. And there's no telling that this won't happen again.

The ambulance could have been blocked by normal well behaving traffic too. Seems like the optimal solution would be for most roads to have a separate bus/bike lane which normal traffic can not ever use, then in emergencies it can be used as a fast lane around traffic.

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

#142

Post by [deleted] »

joshribakoff wrote: post #67
CamperBob2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”

[deleted]

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

#143

Post by djohnston »

beachy wrote: post #43
CamperBob2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Development of an automated driving option is a safety-critical context, and that requires real-world deployment experience. All the more reason not to fuck things up at this stage. Precautionary principl is very appropriate with new tech in a safety-critical context.

More people are dying with unnecessary precaution because we keep humans behind the wheel.

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

#144

Post by [deleted] »

mcpackieh wrote: post #103
CamperBob2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your argument has the form of: "We have to do something. This is something, therefore we have to do this." You've failed to establish automated driving as a safer alternative, let alone the best practical solution. The fact that these cars can't even move out of the way of emergency vehicles proves they aren't ready for testing on the public now. > requires real-world deployment experience. Not at this stage it doesn…

[deleted]

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

#145

Post by pests »

joshribakoff wrote: post #76
pests wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was taught to allow the ambulance to manuever and do what it needs to do. It will drive the wrong direction down a road, hop onto curbs, drive on sidewalks, etc. They have trainining and experience in this type of driving. It sounds like moving to the other lane would have just blocked another ambulance. What is the procedure here?

What part of “pull over to the right” is hard to understand or ambiguous for you? Thats my understanding of the law.

If the ambulance is in the right lane - do I still pull over in front of them? Every lane is blocked besides the right lane - do I block it or line up behind another car already at the light? The real world isn't so black and white.

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

#146

Post by pests »

statop wrote: post #128
pests wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of question is that? Of course I wouldn't be happy. Would you? What does me getting out of the car have to do with anything?

Your stated argument against allowing human control of the vehicle is that it presents a safety issue, implying that you could be car jacked. You could be car jacked while riding in a taxi/lyft/uber/etc. It’s unclear why you think this any different.

Usually a taxi/lyft/uber has the doors locked and if someone tried to open them the driver would drive away.

In this situation of yours it sounds like anyone can just walk up to a AV and open the door and get in.

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

#148

Post by pests »

flandish wrote: post #54
pests wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm bearish on self driving usually but this seems blown out of porportions. 1) I don't think it was in the way. A lane was open to the right lane but it waited 90s for a firetruck to move in the left lane before it continued on. 2) If I am paying for a ride in a Cruise and some random person hops in the front seat to "relocate" the car because it is inconviencing them - I will not be happy. Safety issue, etc. 3) We…

1) it took 90s to prepare for transport before being able to move. This is fast but also standard. 2) If you are in the car, and I as a firefighter enter, I am going to announce that and your opinion doesn’t matter. I am moving it for safetys sake. I will be safe, kind, and take your safety into consideration. But that you will be late to work does not enter. 3+4) I have extricated patients, in massive accidents, ali…

2) I agree with you but normally a car is locked from the inside and random people (firefighter or not) shouldn't be able to just open it via the usual methods. Police still have to bust out windows to extract people all the time. They don't get a special unlock button.

I agree with you in general. I'm sorry you have to go through things like that.

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

#149

Post by djohnston »

Quite strange, from the report it seems like traffic was moving smoothly in the adjacent lane, including another ambulance. Perhaps a robot ambulance would have handled the obstacle better than this human did? Perhaps the patient who was hit and killed by another human driver would have survived… ah but yes we need to get these AVs off the road before they kill more people!

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

#150

Post by lamontcg »

perihelions wrote: post #62

- "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 flawe…

This isn't even a "trolley problem" it sounds like this is just "fake news":

> "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."

> 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.

This is also the easiest "trolley problem" in the world since it was the vehicle driven by the human that struck the pedestrian and gave them a life threatening injury. I know humans have a metric fuckton of perceptual biases, but I have no idea why that isn't the intellectual equivalent of stabbing-you-in-the-face-obvious.

If the story was centered on the driver of the vehicle and if they were some rich narcissist we wouldn't have any difficulty understanding that blaming the vehicle that blocked the ambulance for 90 seconds was blame shifting.

Post reply on HN