Cruise

[diplomat33]

More info:

Driver hits woman in S.F., then Cruise driverless car runs her over​

A driver, on the Cruise's left, hit the woman first. She was bounced off to the path of the Cruise that then ran her over and stopped when it pinned her at the rear axle and the tire.

Both cars were stopping for the red light and both started to move when the light turned green but both ignored that the woman was still walking and had not safely reached the road shoulder, curb, or divider.

I don't know why the car is all the way on the other side of the intersection on the next block. Did it drag the lady all the way from the intersection further down to the next block?

Or did it stop at the intersection and the first responders moved it out to clear the intersection? It might not be reasonable because it was moved way more than necessary further down in the next block.

If dragging was the case, I don't think a normal human driver would do that. It may take the machine routine more time to stop in this case.

It is horrible what happened to the woman. I hope she recovers.

But I do think the primary blame should be placed on the human driven car that hit the woman. If the other car had been an AV, the woman would not have been hit in the first place and this tragedy would have been avoided. So I think it illustrates why we need more AVs to make our roads safer. This does seem like a rare edge case where the woman was hit by one car and then thrown into the path of the AV where it might not have been able to avoid it. But certainly the AV should not have dragged the woman under the vehicle. So AVs do need to do something to detect and avoid objects that might be dragged by the vehicle.

 

[spacecoin]

It is horrible what happened to the woman. I hope she recovers.

But I do think the primary blame should be placed on the human driven car that hit the woman. If the other car had been an AV, the woman would not have been hit in the first place and this tragedy would have been avoided. So I think it illustrates why we need more AVs to make our roads safer. This does seem like a rare edge case where the woman was hit by one car and then thrown into the path of the AV where it might not have been able to avoid it. But certainly the AV should not have dragged the woman under the vehicle. So AVs do need to do something to detect and avoid objects that might be dragged by the vehicle.

I don't buy your conclusion that "we need more AVs to make our roads safer."
If the second car had been a human driven car it would likely not have run over the woman. We will know for sure if the footage is released.

To be frank I think we're getting close to CA DMV revoking that Cruise permit.

 

[diplomat33]

I don't buy into your conclusion that "we need more AVs to make our roads safer."
If the second car had been a human driven car it would likely not have run over the woman.

But it was the first car, driven by a human, that hit the woman in the first place that caused the Cruise to run her over. The Cruise only ran her over because the human driven car hit her first! If you replace the Cruise with a human driven car, the woman would still have been hit, she just might not been run over a second time. But if the first car had been an AV, the woman would not have been hit at all and the Cruise would not have run her over.

 

[diplomat33]

To be frank I think we're getting close to CA DMV revoking that Cruise permit.

That is certainly possible. Cruise has had too many serious failures.

 

[JulienW]

I don't buy your conclusion that "we need more AVs to make our roads safer."
If the second car had been a human driven car it would likely not have run over the woman. We will know for sure if the footage is released.....

How can you each that conclusion without knowing the details? Could be the human driver hit the person and immediately threw them into the path and under the Cruse with no time for it to stop. If this is the case then a human driver would not have made any difference.

We would need a lot more details before making any sound judgment.

Just to add here is what a Cruse spokesperson said:

“a human-driven vehicle struck a pedestrian while traveling in the lane immediately to the left of a Cruise AV. The initial impact was severe and launched the pedestrian directly in front of the AV. The AV then braked aggressively to minimize the impact...."

 

[willow_hiller]

How can you each that conclusion without knowing the details? Could be the human driver hit the person and immediately threw them into the path and under the Cruse with no time for it to stop. If this is the case then a human driver would not have made any difference.

We would need a lot more details before making any sound judgment.

If Cruise wants to build public confidence in their technology, they should release as much dash cam footage as they are legally able to. We know the vehicles have cameras and other telemetry. If their account of the incident is accurate, the footage and data should back it up.

 

[JulienW]

If Cruise wants to build public confidence in their technology, they should release as much dash cam footage as they are legally able to. We know the vehicles have cameras and other telemetry. If their account of the incident is accurate, the footage and data should back it up.

Agree but it is unreasonable to expect the footage to be released already since this just happened a few hours ago. Authorities must be given exclusive access for their investigation and then Cruse will need to obtain permission form the victim and/or family members. This takes some time.

 

[Tam]

But it was the first car, driven by a human, that hit the woman in the first place that caused the Cruise to run her over. The Cruise only ran her over because the human driven car hit her first! If you replace the Cruise with a human driven car, the woman would still have been hit, she just might not been run over a second time. But if the first car had been an AV, the woman would not have been hit at all and the Cruise would not have run her over.

Although California doesn't require a car to wait for a pedestrian to reach a curb or a divider, Cruise should have programmed its machine to stay put if the pedestrian has not reached the curb or divider. Or at least cleared 1.5 lane width adjacent to it.

I read a long time ago (decades with no internet yet) that a school kid was walking in the crosswalk that barely cleared a space for a car to do a right turn. As the car did, the kid stopped and turned around and the driver of the car didn’t react fast enough and hit the kid with minor scrapes but it pointed out to the danger of just focusing on the right of way such as there's enough clearance to make a right turn or, in this case, the light turned green.

Unless it's a hardware issues, Cruise should have programmed this scenario better.

As a driver, since I read the news clip of the kid who got hit, I've been looking for pedestrians to make sure they are no where within 1.5 lane wide away adjacent at a walking intersection regardless of the light status.

 

[diplomat33]

Although California doesn't require a car to wait for a pedestrian to reach a curb or a divider, Cruise should have programmed its machine to stay put if the pedestrian has not reached the curb or divider. Or at least cleared 1.5 lane width adjacent to it.

I read a long time ago (decades with no internet yet) that a school kid was walking in the crosswalk that barely cleared a space for a car to do a right turn. As the car did, the kid stopped and turned around and the driver of the car didn’t react fast enough and hit the kid with minor scrapes but it pointed out to the danger of just focusing on the right of way such as there's enough clearance to make a right turn or, in this case, the light turned green.

Unless it's a hardware issues, Cruise should have programmed this scenario better.

As a driver, since I read the news clip of the kid who got hit, I've been looking for pedestrians to make sure they are no where within 1.5 lane wide away adjacent at a walking intersection regardless of the light status.

Yes. And we've seen many examples of Cruise not yielding to pedestrians and getting way too close. Cruise claims it is "safe" behavior because the AV can accurately predict behavior so it can get closer to the pedestrians without hitting them. I've long said that this driving behavior by Cruise is unsafe and unacceptable. Sadly, we may have seen the consequences. And while the Cruise AV did not cause the first collision with the pedestrian, it's unsafe distance may have contributed to the second collision with the pedestrian.

 

[stopcrazypp]

More info:

Driver hits woman in S.F., then Cruise driverless car runs her over​

A driver, on the Cruise's left, hit the woman first. She was bounced off to the path of the Cruise that then ran her over and stopped when it pinned her at the rear axle and the tire.

Both cars were stopping for the red light and both started to move when the light turned green but both ignored that the woman was still walking and had not safely reached the road shoulder, curb, or divider.

I don't know why the car is all the way on the other side of the intersection on the next block. Did it drag the lady all the way from the intersection further down to the next block?

Or did it stop at the intersection and the first responders moved it out to clear the intersection? It might not be reasonable because it was moved way more than necessary further down in the next block.

If dragging was the case, I don't think a normal human driver would do that. It may take the machine routine more time to stop in this case.

The article shows a picture of the woman still pinned to the car, which shows it was quite a bit away from the intersection. So either the impact threw her forward, or she was dragged to there by the Cruise.

This appears to be the location.

90 5th St · 90 5th St, San Francisco, CA 1980

90 5th St, San Francisco, CA 1980

www.google.com

 

[stopcrazypp]

If Cruise wants to build public confidence in their technology, they should release as much dash cam footage as they are legally able to. We know the vehicles have cameras and other telemetry. If their account of the incident is accurate, the footage and data should back it up.

Cruise has generally avoided doing so because it doesn't allow their PR team to spin it to the most positive. Doing so would also set up expectations to release footage even in cases where it's not so flattering. Another factor is that in the modern age, video captures more views (can be posted on YouTube) and will draw more public attention. A written statement instead most people will forget about quickly.

 

[Bladerskb]

If Cruise wants to build public confidence in their technology, they should release as much dash cam footage as they are legally able to. We know the vehicles have cameras and other telemetry. If their account of the incident is accurate, the footage and data should back it up.

I will play the devil's advocate on this.

You claim is more transparent as other Tesla fans do aswell. Yet they haven't released a single video and in-fact force people into arbitration when there is an accident.

If you changed your stance on Tesla then sure. But you can't hold your Tesla views, put them on a pedestal and then demand Cruise does A, B and C.

If we follow the same logic then Cruise should do no more than what Tesla is doing.

 

[willow_hiller]

You claim is more transparent as other Tesla fans do aswell. Yet they haven't released a single video and in-fact force people into arbitration when there is an accident.

Unless compelled by law enforcement, Tesla cannot unilaterally release footage from vehicles being driven by private individuals. That's a massive breach of privacy. The owners of the Tesla vehicles can and repeatedly have released their own footage of FSD Beta.

Meanwhile, this Cruise vehicle is owned by Cruise, operated by Cruise, and did not even have an occupant at the time.

I've tried to explain this concept to you many times. Your willful ignorance on this subject is really tiring.

 

[Bladerskb]

Unless compelled by law enforcement, Tesla cannot unilaterally release footage from vehicles being driven by private individuals. That's a massive breach of privacy. The owners of the Tesla vehicles can and repeatedly have released their own footage of FSD Beta.

Meanwhile, this Cruise vehicle is owned by Cruise, operated by Cruise, and did not even have an occupant at the time.

I've tried to explain this concept to you many times. Your willful ignorance on this subject is really tiring.

This is simply false, there have been times Tesla has with-held data that owners have requested they release and the only way they are able to get that data is from verygreen who hacks into the car. I see that your continued willingness to lie hasn't subsided.

Exactly like I thought, you demand things from Cruise while you let Tesla get away with murder.

 

[Tam]

The article shows a picture of the woman still pinned to the car, which shows it was quite a bit away from the intersection. So either the impact threw her forward, or she was dragged to there by the Cruise.

This appears to be the location.

90 5th St · 90 5th St, San Francisco, CA 1980

90 5th St, San Francisco, CA 1980

www.google.com

Thanks for the updated picture. It wasn't there last night but is now included. Also, thanks for the map.

This is what I understand of 2 possibilities where the pedestrian was hit:

1) right in front of the hit-and-run driver where it was stopping at the red light.

2) On the further side of where the cars were stopping for the red light. This location makes sense as both cars could gain speed to pass the intersection, and also the slowing down of Cruise that dragged the pedestrian maybe about 5 to 10 car lengths on the other side of the intersection.

Cruise could have some excuses with collision location #1 where the cars were stopping for red and running for green due to a blind spot and too little time to react.

Cruise has very little excuse with collision location #2 where the pedestrian was on the further side. A good driver should be to slow down or stay put when the light turns green with a pedestrian still on the road. A bad driver just claimed the right of way in a green light and committed hit and run.

 

[Bladerskb]

This is simply false, there have been times Tesla has with-held data that owners have requested they release and the only way they are able to get that data is from verygreen who hacks into the car. I see that your continued willingness to lie hasn't subsided.

Exactly like I thought, you demand things from Cruise while you let Tesla get away with murder.

To add on to this. The only time its been reported that Tesla publicly released crash data is for their own PR benefits.

"In what could be a first, Tesla has reportedly publicly released the data logs from a customer’s vehicle involved in a crash that led the owner to protest at Tesla’s booth at the Shanghai Motor Show. China Market Supervision News says that Tesla sent them the data logs of the crash with an explanation of the event."​

So much for "massive breach of privacy". I swear Tesla fans scare me way more than Tesla.

"Many owners involved in crashes have requested their own data logs, but the automaker has prevented the release of the data in almost all cases that we have reviewed."​

Tesla publicly shares data logs of vehicle involved in crash that led owner to protest at auto show

In what could be a first, Tesla has reportedly publicly released the data logs from a customer’s vehicle involved in...

electrek.co

 

[stopcrazypp]

This is simply false, there have been times Tesla has with-held data that owners have requested they release and the only way they are able to get that data is from verygreen who hacks into the car. I see that your continued willingness to lie hasn't subsided.

Exactly like I thought, you demand things from Cruise while you let Tesla get away with murder.

What you mention is irrelevant to his point however. Tesla can't release any owner video footage without their permission, so it's a non-starter.

 

[stopcrazypp]

To add on to this. The only time its been reported that Tesla publicly released crash data is for their own PR benefits.

"In what could be a first, Tesla has reportedly publicly released the data logs from a customer’s vehicle involved in a crash that led the owner to protest at Tesla’s booth at the Shanghai Motor Show. China Market Supervision News says that Tesla sent them the data logs of the crash with an explanation of the event."​

So much for "massive breach of privacy". I swear Tesla fans scare me way more than Tesla.

"Many owners involved in crashes have requested their own data logs, but the automaker has prevented the release of the data in almost all cases that we have reviewed."​

Tesla publicly shares data logs of vehicle involved in crash that led owner to protest at auto show

In what could be a first, Tesla has reportedly publicly released the data logs from a customer’s vehicle involved in...

electrek.co

On the same day, Tesla also made EDR access software free on their website, so that article is outdated:

Tesla Made It Easier To Retrieve Event Data Recorder Information

Tesla has launched an Event Data Recorder (EDR) Resources website that helps owners retrieve EDR information.

www.google.com

 

[Bladerskb]

What you mention is irrelevant to his point however. Tesla can't release any owner video footage without their permission, so it's a non-starter.

Tesla Fan #1: Cruise should release as much dash cam footage as they are legally able to. If their account of the incident is accurate, the footage and data should back it up.​

​

Me: Tesla should also release as much footage and data as they are legally able to. Up to this point they have prevented the release of video and data in almost all reviewed cases (Electrek) even at the legal request of the owners who are also asking "If Tesla's account of the incident is accurate, the footage and data should back it up".​

​

Tesla Fan #2: Tesla can't release any owner video footage without their permission, so it's irrelevant.​

yo fear Tesla fans after fearing God!

 

[stopcrazypp]

Thanks for the updated picture. It wasn't there last night but is now included. Also, thanks for the map.

This is what I understand of 2 possibilities where the pedestrian was hit:

1) right in front of the hit-and-run driver where it was stopping at the red light.

2) On the further side of where the cars were stopping for the red light. This location makes sense as both cars could gain speed to pass the intersection, and also the slowing down of Cruise that dragged the pedestrian maybe about 5 to 10 car lengths on the other side of the intersection.

Cruise could have some excuses with collision location #1 where the cars were stopping for red and running for green due to a blind spot and too little time to react.

Cruise has very little excuse with collision location #2 where the pedestrian was on the further side. A good driver should be to slow down or stay put when the light turns green with a pedestrian still on the road. A bad driver just claimed the right of way in a green light and committed hit and run.

Yeah, it's hard to piece together what happened just based on statements. It's not entirely clear why Cruise would have continued going forward on the green if it saw there was still a pedestrian still in the cross walk.

Your lane position drawing makes sense however. It could be possible the person was already crossed past the Cruise's lane (so Cruise does the same "go around crossing pedestrian" move that have been shown in the past), but the hit and run driver hit the pedestrian in a way that put her back into that lane.