A bus driver killed a man, the city blamed tech

https://www.theindustry.pw/p/cruise-sf-fire-chief

by lxm • 3 years ago

90 53 3 years ago

Where's the video that contradicts the first responders account? Not casting aspersions, I've just looked through this article, linked tweets, etc. and I can't find it.

ChrisMarshallNY2• 3 years ago

I suspect that you'd need to go to Cruise, for that. I suspect they have their own reasons for not publishing it on YT.

femiagbabiaka2• 3 years ago

I see, good point. Seems like a shame -- even the publishing of an edited video (to leave out any inappropriate content) would be the best antidote to lies in the media.

more_corn2• 3 years ago

Because the cruise vehicle is sitting in the middle of the street blocking the road while an emergency vehicle tries to get by?

jffry• 3 years ago

I found this report [1] from NBC Bay Area, which states that Cruise would not release the video "But NBC Bay Area was able to review a nearly 13 minute video which is purportedly the incident in question. It appears to show what the company describes, including the ambulance managing to squeeze by the stopped Cruise car."

(Reading between the lines: I'm assuming the news station was able to review footage that is not from Cruise (dashcam from a cop car? security camera?), and are being circumspect about even describing their source to protect whoever gave them access)

[1] https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/cruise-pushes-back-cla...

ChrisMarshallNY2• 3 years ago

the takeaway for journalists here is clear: be skeptical of your sources, triple-check your facts, and don’t ever assume that your colleagues are doing the same.

That should be the first thing they teach you in Journalism 101, these days.

I get sick of reading news stories that are all the same AP story, with different ads around it.

gabereiser2• 3 years ago

It’s not journalism anymore, it’s visits to your ad riddled pages. Regardless of what truth you post. That’s what it’s become now. That’s web journalism. “I heard it on TikTok” is next.

There are a few institutions trying to keep it dignified but it’s become a bazaar.

slg3• 3 years ago

It’s not journalism anymore,

The "anymore" there means something changed. I don't think there was ever a time in which journalists did not regularly print statements from officials like police and firefighters as fact not worthy of questioning. Sometimes we get into a mindset that everything is getting worse when in reality it is just that we are now more aware of how bad it has always been.

bee_rider• 3 years ago

The sfsrandard article included quotes from the Cruise spokesperson, and correctly attributed the statements they were made by first responders to those first responders.

I don’t see why TheIndustry would take this sanctimonious tone about “lessons for journalists” when they are doing the exact same thing here, just repeating the statements of spokespeople.

I don’t see a lesson for journalists, here. Readers need to correctly parse statements like “according to <some spokesperson>.” When an article describes multiple contradictory statements by different organizations, it should be possible for people to infer that it is too early to make a conclusion.

xigency3• 3 years ago

Kind of funny that it is assumed that a human-operated vehicle would be more prompt in getting out of the way. Yesterday, walking in my city I saw an ambulance stuck at an intersection for over a minute because of confused drivers and a police vehicle blocking the road.

I think the fact that the vehicles stop is better. Emergency vehicles can use any lane even for opposite traffic - so go around them.

Meanwhile, Teslas seem to target emergency vehicles for ramming at max speed.

living_room_pc• 3 years ago

Kind of funny that it is assumed that a human-operated vehicle would be more prompt in getting out of the way.

Honestly I think it is silly to assume not. People (in general) have a pretty good intuition if EMS is coming their way.

Beyond that, this is a commercial service that is to be rolled out en-masse, it has to be better than the average human or else you will have lawsuits left and right.

I think the fact that the vehicles stop is better. Emergency vehicles can use any lane even for opposite traffic - so go around them.

That is not a tenable solution.

xigency3• 3 years ago

Agree to disagree. Many people do not realize they should move at all when there are sirens and lights, even directly behind them. And a stationary vehicle is quite predictable. It seems highly unlikely a fleet of self driving vehicles could block all oncoming and opposing lanes of traffic.

But what do I know. I’m just some guy.

yieldcrv4• 3 years ago

Anyone that’s been on the ground in SF, at cafes, beer gardens, barbershops and any housing protest knows that this is just a symptom

A knee jerk boiling over of general disdain of their mismanaged corporate technocracy with a nominal standing committee

xigency3• 3 years ago

Sounds like the same old NIMBYs upset that their rising wealth is tied to people making waves.

tqi• 3 years ago

I genuinely have no idea what any of that means. What is a symptom what?

yieldcrv4• 3 years ago

a symptom of a disdain towards tech wealth, rapid changes, and mostly inequality viewed through a juvenile and narrow lens from people on the left side of the wealth bell curve there

jsd1982• 3 years ago

Did they _really_ need to call out that the man (victim) was homeless? Is that a significant identifier important to the story?

justrealist3• 3 years ago

If you have lived in SF, you understand the context this adds to the situation.

PlunderBunny2• 3 years ago

Then couldn’t there be more detail that would allow those of us who haven’t lived in SF to understand it too?

moate• 3 years ago

I don’t live there, could you provide the context in a paragraph or 2?

serf• 3 years ago

No, they could have just described the persons' behavior -- but instead they wanted to include the false nuance that is echoed in the comments here that because someone is homeless it implies and symbolizes their mental state as being broken and their judgement as being faulty.

It's about as true as looking at the ballot returns of any single state and then declaring all people within that state as party affiliates for the elected party -- it's not true but it's useful for painting the people involved into hateful and simplified stereotypes that do nothing but provide bigots with an easy to understand mental model, however false or imprecise it might be.

One thing that can be said for sure : If any of us were homeless traffic victims I doubt that we'd want "they're homeless" as the de-facto explanation as to why a vehicle ran us down -- it's not that easy to explain away.

doubleg72• 3 years ago

Maybe because it does take a broken mental state to give up on society and go live out on the streets. I understand that is a progression and it is no ones choice, but it doesn’t change the fact that no one of a sound mental state lives like that.

djohnston• 3 years ago

I was struck by the anti AV attitude and poor arguments put forth on the original post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37371539

From a presumably technical audience it was disappointing to read through those takes.

alasdair_• 3 years ago

On August 14, at around 11 pm, a homeless man was crossing a street in San Francisco’s South of Market neighborhood when he was hit by a bus.

Why does it matter if the man was homeless? "a duplex-owning man was crossing a street" would sound silly so why does the man's lack of home need to be mentioned?

DiggyJohnson• 3 years ago

I think the additional context is fine. It's only an issue if you're sensitive to the word "homeless" and see the description as demeaning. Otherwise, it's additional.

Supermancho2• 3 years ago

Otherwise, it's additional.

Why didn't they add his hair color, since it's additional? At least they told us his gender...so that's also additional. What about his political views? It's nitpicking minor details, but that's often the problem with marginalized groups. It's subtly reinforced.

P_I_Staker6• 3 years ago

Look in this forum. According to all the SV liberals, this means it was definitely the fault of the homeless, and no need for investigation.

more_corn2• 3 years ago

To be clear. A cruise vehicle DID block emergency responders’ access to the scene right?

partdavid• 3 years ago

The article is written as some kind of victory lap over misinformation but as far as I can tell, the only information provided is that:

- A man was struck by a Muni bus

- A paramedic on the scene claimed that a Cruise AV delayed transportation to the hospital (not access to the scene)

- Video shows a Cruise vehicle stopped in a traffic lane and not moving to the right (but we don't see the video, so we don't know if that means it blocked anything, or if it was the "wrong" thing to do)

- The new report says that the Fire Chief did not "attribute" the death to the Cruise AV, and specifically calls out that this is in contrast to assumptions made by press outlets in their misinterpretation of the initial paramedic's incident report.

My interpretation is that there is some disagreement over whether the Cruise vehicle actually "blocked" anything, and that the final report determined that it either didn't cause any delay at all, or that whatever delay it caused didn't matter to the outcome, in contrast to the opinion of the paramedic.

The article is written in such a heightened, sensitive way, it's tough to find the actual information, which is unfortunate. It's not journalistic or anything, it's commentary.

lotsoweiners• 3 years ago

A bus driver killed a man, the city blamed tech

Related Stories