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.”

  • sfgifz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      72
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • VubDapple@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        45
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • meco03211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          37
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nah fam. If you take a job in emergency services, you need to not freeze in emergency situations.

          • VubDapple@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            22
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

        • LrdThndr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          28
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • andrewta@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      1 year ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We don’t really know because “The video, which Cruise declined to share publicly”

        “Just trust me, bro.”

    • watson387
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • lakemalcom10@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        1 year ago

        “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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

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

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

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

          • meco03211@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            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.

      • littlewonder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

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

      • BanditMcDougal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          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.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      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.

      • david@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

      • neuropean@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      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?