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.”
Unclear what to do with pitchfork:
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.
In crisis situations people sometimes freeze up and they have no control over it. But to you, so ready to blame, that’s evidence of stupidity. I’m sure you’re confident you’d do better. So angry and so lacking in empathy. Typical hypermasculine engineer.
Nah fam. If you take a job in emergency services, you need to not freeze in emergency situations.
And yet they sometimes do. I’ve worked with combat veterans where arguably it’s even more important to not freeze and they still do. Some of them never forgive themselves. Practice can help but the nervous system still has its instinctual modes.
deleted by creator
Go back and read it again moron. Be sure to get past the first sentence.
I know I’d do better because I HAVE done better. In situations very similar to this.
And if you freeze up while driving an emergency vehicle, DO NOT FUCKING DRIVE AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE. There is zero room for error or indecision while driving emergency traffic.
Source: 6 years of driving emergency traffic.
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).
We don’t really know because “The video, which Cruise declined to share publicly”
“Just trust me, bro.”
If the video clears them, why decline to share it publicly?
“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.”
wtf
So the next time they have video that implicates them, they can say it’s policy to not release video.
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)
Such videos will be suppeaned by court and deleting them is a serious offense .
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.
It’s ok, the company can afford the fee.
It’s very common for companies to lock their shit down if they get even a whiff of potential legal action, regardless of guilt.
Fuck this.
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.
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.
Sorry. Not everything is intended for your entertainment.
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.
The question I see unanswered is whether the victim had survivability under any circumstances.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ok.
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.
Ok.
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.
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?