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

151–160 of 166 posts

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

#151

Post by CamperBob2 »

mcpackieh wrote: post #134
CamperBob2 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've failed to establish automated driving as a safer alternative, And you've failed to establish anything as a safer alternative. (Want to get Americans out of their cars? Bring guns. You'll need a lot of them.) Get out of the way of the people who are trying to make things better, please.

> And you've failed to establish anything as a safer alternative. I don't have, but since you've asked here are some possibilities, pick and choose as many as you like: ban cars, mandate breathalyzer interlocks, revise safety standards, improve collision avoidance systems in human-driven cars. > Get out of the way of the people who are trying to make things better, please Trying to make things better doesn't give you…

Well, you know, we all want to change the world.

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

#152

Post by rafram »

giantg2 wrote: post #68
blincoln wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> traffic is required to yield.

And traffic is required to yield to me when I step into the road, but I still wouldn’t start crossing if I saw a car coming with no sign of stopping.

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

#153

Post by 6D794163636F756 »

oatmeal1 wrote: post #96
nkrisc wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because why the person needed an ambulance is completely immaterial to whether the ambulance was impeded a self-driving vehicle or not. It could have just as easily been a heart attack and the questions raised about self-driving vehicles would be no different.

GP is criticizing the narrative focus. A robotaxi causing a new, less serious problem is the focus over a commonplace very serious problem caused by conventional cars.

But the issues with driven cars are talked about a lot. This is a situation where we have to evaluate if self driving cars should be allowed to test in the public commons. All other discussions aren't relevant to this discussion (but are still important to have)

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

#154

Post by nkrisc »

oatmeal1 wrote: post #96
nkrisc wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because why the person needed an ambulance is completely immaterial to whether the ambulance was impeded a self-driving vehicle or not. It could have just as easily been a heart attack and the questions raised about self-driving vehicles would be no different.

GP is criticizing the narrative focus. A robotaxi causing a new, less serious problem is the focus over a commonplace very serious problem caused by conventional cars.

But the article isn’t about human drivers hitting pedestrians. There is already much written about that.

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

#155

Post by flandish »

pests wrote: post #148
flandish wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes but a key assigned to apparatus like fire will fix that concern. We already have keys to buildings in the trucks, basically. This is no different.

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

#156

Post by coding123 »

fuelfive wrote: post #24
coding123 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Title says after not because...

By this logic, the title would be equally correct if they wrote "Jimmy Buffet Dies After Cruise Robotaxi Blocked Ambulance"

Was Jimmy Buffet anywhere near this taxi?

Was this person in SF anywhere near this taxi?

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

#157

Post by coding123 »

pests wrote: post #17
YuukiRey wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't there a link between the taxi and the ambulance person?

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

#158

Post by living_room_pc »

01100011 wrote: post #12

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 ex…

> Title seems misleading and Cruise doesn't seem to be responsible for the death

I hate click-bate titles just as much as the next guy, but in this case it is warranted. The article said the injured was in critical condition. In general getting this person to proper care in Hospital _faster_ could have had a better outcome.

Regardless, I don't think Cruise is roadworthy until they are able to clear the way for EMS. Maybe the cars don't need to be manually overridden in such case, at least initially, but even if they can maneuver to the side of the road that would be enough.

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

#159

Post by statop »

halfcat wrote: post #135
tremon wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did the Cruise robotaxi have a mechanical malfunction? If not, can you try harder to come up with a more relevant whataboutism?

No. Because it’s irrelevant how relevant it is. That’s the entire point. It could be a stalled car, or a fallen tree. People get overly concerned with blame attribution, and future prevention, when there is often no fault to begin with. It’s akin to starting a witch hunt after the bad harvest.

This comment is very selfawarewolves. I agree, people in this thread are overly concerned with blame attribution, but maybe it's not the group you think.

SFFD is highlighting to people who live/work/visit SF that so called "AV" taxis are getting in their way. That they were able to move another vehicle to get the ambulance on its way is immaterial. They are saying that in a different set of circumstances where they can't, this car blocks the ambulance. That's the problem, that's the fault.

Your comment sounds like throwing a ladder on the freeway, but you vigilantes better not stop traffic to clear it, no one has hit it. Yet.

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

#160

Post by oatmeal1 »

jinkiesScoob wrote: post #105
oatmeal1 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GP is criticizing the narrative focus. A robotaxi causing a new, less serious problem is the focus over a commonplace very serious problem caused by conventional cars.

Humans have always lived around danger; and now, for as long as anyone can remember, cars have been possibly the most significant source danger while also being integral in modern life. I would argue reacting to new problems is the rational thing to do. Sure, cars are dangerous, but they enable a social structure that is far safer than what we had(hospitals, specialized surgeons, first responders, advanced pharmaceut…

> Sure, cars are dangerous, but they enable a social structure that is far safer than what we had(hospitals, specialized surgeons, first responders, advanced pharmaceuticals, etc) to say nothing of productivity.

The next time I go to the Amsterdam, I'll be sure to see how many less hospitals they have.

Post reply on HN