Driverless Taxis Blocked Ambulance Response to Fatal Accident, San Francisco Fire Dept. Says
www.nytimes.com
Two Cruise taxis delayed an ambulance carrying a car accident victim to a hospital, a department report said. The company said it was not at fault.

Two Cruise driverless taxis blocked an ambulance carrying a critically injured patient who later died at a hospital, a San Francisco Fire Department report said, in another incident involving self-driving cars in the city.

On Aug. 14, two Cruise autonomous vehicles were stopped in the right two lanes of a four-lane, one-way street in the SoMa neighborhood, where the victim was found, according to the department report. It said that a police vehicle in another lane had to be moved in order for the ambulance to leave.

  • Falmarri@lemmy.worldEnglish
    146·
    10 months ago

    The city has to “put up” with it by allowing them to be tested there? What?

    • sugarfree@lemmy.worldEnglish
      353·
      10 months ago

      The city government allowed it and the city residents have to put up with it.

      • Ghostalmedia@lemmy.worldEnglish
        48·
        10 months ago

        The residents also have to put up with human drivers. And if you’ve driven through SF commute traffic, you know how shitty they are.

      • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
        411·
        10 months ago

        Isn’t that how government works tho? City council is voted in, no ones being forced to do the job. If the people don’t like the job they’re doing, they can recall them and run themselves.

        How is this a criticism? I don’t follow, unless you’re just an anarchist, do you have a better idea on how to run a city with your decades of experience doing so?

        • sugarfree@lemmy.worldEnglish
          154·
          10 months ago

          It’s not that deep. I said it’s fucked up that San Francisco residents have to put up with experimental driverless taxis in their city. That’s my whole comment.

          • Neato@kbin.social
            318·
            10 months ago

            No it is that deep. YOU’RE not that deep. This is a complex conversation and you just want to be able to spout off a nonsense take and then try to downplay other people’s attempts to explain it.

        • bobman@unilem.org
          7·
          10 months ago

          I think he’s referring to the people who may not support having these on the road yet having to deal with them on the road.

          You’d have a point if every governing body was appointed unanimously by their subjects.

        • Alto@kbin.social
          6·
          10 months ago

          I can’t speak to whether it’s the case in this specific instance, but it’s quite common for politicians to just happen to get donations from entities tied to these sorts of projects soon before or after they get the go ahead

          • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
            12·
            10 months ago

            If you’re suggesting a randomly assigned citizen watchdog collective who’s compensation would be protected, prioritized, and pegged at a fair ratio to purchasing power, then I am 100% in agreement with you.