this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
251 points (92.3% liked)

News

23397 readers
4783 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
251
San Francisco Fire Dept.: Person Dies After Robotaxi Blocked Ambulance (sfstandard.com)
submitted 1 year ago by nutsack@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
50 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A stalled Cruise robotaxi blocked a San Francisco ambulance from getting a pedestrian hit by a vehicle to the hospital in an Aug. 14 incident, according to first responder accounts. The patient later died of their injuries.

“The patient was packaged for transport with life-threatening injuries, but we were unable to leave the scene initially due to the Cruise vehicles not moving,” the San Francisco Fire Department report, first reported by Forbes, reads. “The fact that Cruise autonomous vehicles continue to block ingress and egress to critical 911 calls is unacceptable.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sfgifz@lemmy.world 73 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

Unclear what to do with pitchfork:

Video and other surveillance data gathered by Cruise and reviewed by The Standard showed three Cruise vehicles were present at the scene. Two left the scene but one remained stopped as an ambulance arrived behind it. Cars continued to pass in the lane to the right of the stopped Cruise car.

"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.

[–] LrdThndr@lemmy.world 69 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Use it on the dumbass ambulance crew.

Full time software developer and part-time volunteer first responder here.

It sounds to my developer brain that the car was in “pull over for the emergency vehicle” mode and the presence of the ambulance with the flashy lights and woo woo noises basically stun-locked it so that it just sat there waiting for the ambulance to pass.

As for my first responder brain, In EVOC (emergency vehicle operations course), you’re taught that, when in emergency mode, you should TRY to pass on the left because that’s what people expect and you don’t want them doing unexpected things while you’re speeding, passing, and caring for a patient.

BUT… you’re also taught to use your goddamned brain, and the “pass on the left” thing is a guideline, not a rule. If traffic is stopped and you have a safe path, you take it.

This driver was being overly dogmatic about how they pass traffic, and their stubborn refusal to pass on the right contributed to the mortality of their patient.

However, “stupid” isn’t “criminal”, and there’s no way to say that the patient would have survived even if they had teleported to the hospital - emergency medicine is just a “do your best” situation, and bad outcomes happen. Tbh, though, it’s called “the golden hour”, not “the golden minute and a half”, and it’s pretty unlikely that 90 seconds would have made a huge difference in the outcome. On top of that, care doesn’t begin at the hospital. Care begins when the medic first begins assessing the patient. The medic will be working on stabilizing the patient in the back of the rig even while the driver sits there behind a stun-locked-npc car with his thumb up his ass.

So, if I were this crew’s chief or shift lieutenant, which I’m not, but if I were, I wouldn’t fire the driver, but they’d definitely get written up for it. I’d strip the driver of their driving privileges until they went back through EVOC again and wrote “I will be flexible in my operations and not be a dogmatic dipshit on an emergency scene.” 1000 times.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] andrewta@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So the ambulance driver had the ability to get around and didn't? If that's the case then the ambulance driver has a serious problem (legal problem).

[–] bobman@unilem.org 12 points 1 year ago

We don't really know because "The video, which Cruise declined to share publicly"

"Just trust me, bro."

[–] watson387@sopuli.xyz 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

If the video clears them, why decline to share it publicly?

[–] lakemalcom10@lemm.ee 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"A Cruise spokesperson said the company offered to share video footage with San Francisco officials. As of Saturday morning, Cruise said, city officials had not reviewed the footage. It was unclear why."

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So the next time they have video that implicates them, they can say it's policy to not release video.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Privacy, also.

The last thing they want is people to realize these things are incredibly invasive to everyone’s privacy. (Including the people using them)

[–] bluGill@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Such videos will be suppeaned by court and deleting them is a serious offense .

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

That doesn't necessitate them releasing it wilfully. They can sit on it until court ordered. Then the initial buzz has died from the story. Less likely to leave an impact.

[–] dustyData@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It's ok, the company can afford the fee.

[–] littlewonder@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's very common for companies to lock their shit down if they get even a whiff of potential legal action, regardless of guilt.

[–] bobman@unilem.org 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The video, which Cruise declined to share publicly

Fuck this.

[–] BanditMcDougal@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My guess is they've been advised by lawyers not to share the video. They're probably preparing for defending themselves from a wrongful death suit.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

And they don't want the public to start thinking of self-driving cars as mobile, always-on surveillance machines. Not that that's necessarily the design, it's just hard to design a self-driving car not to capture vast amounts of footage from cameras mounted all over the car.

[–] Umbraveil@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

Sorry. Not everything is intended for your entertainment.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago

Unclear what to do with pitchfork:

Use it on the human driver:

"a pedestrian hit by a vehicle"

We don't know if the self-driving cars might have delayed the ambulance. What we do know is that a human driver hit a pedestrian so hard that the pedestrian was killed.

[–] muddybulldog@mylemmy.win 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The question I see unanswered is whether the victim had survivability under any circumstances.

[–] david 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not sure that's an important question. In my view, even if it turned out correct, "This particular victim would have died anyway, so delaying emergency vehicles is fine" is a logical fallacy, an ethical error and a failure of empathy.

[–] roguetrick@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Proximate cause is an important part of legal theory and extremely important in deontological ethics. You're way off base if you think it's not important.

[–] david 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You are clearly a Very Intelligent Expert and a Wise and Knowledgeable person, so I must bow to your greater, deeper and fuller understanding.

I was weak, pathetic and stupid for thinking that the safety concerns this raises were more important than the technicalities of this individual case. Please accept my humble apologies. I'm sure you'll have further corrections for my naive fumblings and I await your Academic Input eagerly.

[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

It's frankly incredible how many people pretend to miss the forest for the trees. Who do they think they're fooling? It's embarrassing lol.

[–] roguetrick@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ok.

[–] david 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah and now you beat me in debate by writing a shorter answer without giving credibility to my main point by engaging with it in any way. You're such a winner.

[–] neuropean@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

Very hard to tell if 90 seconds is life or death. Every second counts but if they made it to the ER with a minute and a half to spare I don’t know if they would have had enough time for meaningful intervention.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Also, the article had virtually no information on the actual incident. As far as I can see, the only information is: "a pedestrian hit by a vehicle". But, this is a case of a human driver causing such a serious injury to a pedestrian that the pedestrian died.

99.9% of the blame for the death of this pedestrian is due to the human driver who hit them. 0.1% of the blame is the self-driving cars which may (or may not) have delayed the ambulance slightly.

I understand why the focus of the article is the self-driving cars. But it is a tragedy how often human drivers kill pedestrians, cyclists, other drivers, etc.

[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

I wonder if the ambulance was running lights and siren, and if the vehicles passing on the right tried to give way to the ambulance?

[–] A_A@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Evidence here show that ambulance - - could have and should have - - passed to the right.

Yet, the (hypothetical) question remains :
if to save a life I would (no doubt) gently push that stupid car out of the way. Wouldn't you ?

Edit : to @EdibleFriend@EdibleFriend

Dear lemmy user,

Something went wrong in the other tread where you stated that pushing a light car with an ambulance could break the ambulance while I was of the opinion that since the ambulance is a truck and Heavy it would go right and anyway the driver of the ambulance should be able to judge if those vehicles reacts in the right way.
Maybe you want to continue our discussion about it ?

[–] RegularGoose@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, and maybe next time they won't be able to go around. What then?

The fact that this could and probably will happen again and again is enough to make these cars entirely indefensible. The techbro cunts experimenting on the unconsenting public with this broken technology should be charged with vehicular manslaughter for every death caused by their driverless cars.

[–] A_A@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I agree that I did not address that important and bigger issue about robo taxi in general.

Even worse, ai poses great problems in other domains.

[–] charonn0@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Google map of the intersection. An intersection of two one-way streets.

Original report

If my guesses are correct, the Cruise cars weren't programmed to expect an ambulance to want to go the wrong way down a one-way street.

[–] atticus88th@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What if there was any other vehicle stalled there? Wouldn't it have been the same situation?

Also would be great if we had dedicated zones for autonomous vehicles that are clear of any obstacles, confusion or situations that even a normal driver could get stuck in.

[–] thann@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Or like some effective form of public transportation

[–] NightAuthor@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

So… they should program it. Have a remote override for situations like this… something

[–] oxideseven@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Because people driven cars never stall in bad spots.

[–] DarkThoughts@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fuck cars, regardless if driven by humans or robots.

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

God I hate so much the technowizards who think all of our society problems around cars are going to be fixed by self-driving cars. My dad always does this -- any time you point out the issues with expense and congestion near him in the city downtown, he'll start talking about how any day now the self-driving cars will fix it and won't need to park and it'll be sunshine and roses.

Nope. The geometric problems of cars are not solved by fleets of vehicles that park in huge lots at the edge of town. It may mitigate issues, but it does not fix them.

Want to get rid of downtown congestion? Putting people in automated cars won't do it. Only getting rid of the cars will.

The only upside is it will make it that much easier to get rid of mandatory min parking rules which are totally unscientific and should never have been codified to law in the first place.

[–] Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes and no. It will definitely fix some issues and create new ones. Would likely free up some space and be better overall for most.

Less cars is generally better. Plus I don't like driving. I get highly stressed and it ruins my day. Yet when someone else drives me I'm all good. So for me it's a win.

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What's the "no" part of this? You don't seem to disagree with anything I said at all.

[–] Mojojojo1993@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Good point.

I'm guessing there would be a whole host of new issues. Similar to this one. Broken down vehicles blocking access to areas. Parking in weird places.

Job loss from gig economy with Uber and such. Potentially an increase in cars if companies could have fleets of cars. An absolute shit tonne of bandwidth being required for all these cars. Software updates bricking cars. Some people enjoy driving so negative for them maybe. I'm sure there are plenty others. Won't know issues until roll out really happens. Pros and cons to most things unfortunately.

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Full disclosure, I have an older Tesla with only Auto Pilot (AP). I agree with the sentiment that autonomous vehicles won't lead to some congestion free utopia. I do however, think they would improve conditions for the people in them, and quite possibly diminish conditions for people still driving.

When driving with AP, I've found myself many times pacing behind a car going slower than I set my cruise for. It's much less mentally taxing and easier driving like that, lending to an overall better experience. That's similar to how I see autonomous vehicles being implemented. They might add to congestion and increase drive times, but the "driver" won't care. Unfortunately for those not in autonomous vehicles, this also increases their drive times.

[–] admiralteal@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

For what its worth, lower speeds are one of the most straightforwardly effective way to reduce congestion. Road capacity is higher at lower speeds. Errors are less likely to cause serious incidents at lower speeds. Traffic controls don't need to be so aggressive, causing you to spend less of your trip fully-stopped. For most trips, going a bit slower has a completely negligible effect on drive times, especially when you can get most of traffic to do it leading to more laminar flow.

The problem is, only road design is effective to lower speeds. You can't just ask drivers to slow down or change the posted signs, you have to re-engineer roads. People tend to just drive at whatever speed feels comfortable on the road.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

So you're saying robotaxis are no better than cars driven by people? Why not just let the people keep driving?

[–] tomi000@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If I am reading this correctly, the headline should say 'ambulance driver leaves injured person to die because they refuse to pass standing AV'. Am I wrong?