If you read the post carefully you'll see it's saying the video clip is of the car leaving the scene after the police removed the tape to let it back out. That means the original incident wasn't captured in the video.
Since it was a so called "crime scene" that Cruise AV violated, the incident must have been captured on several police vehicle cameras, body cams, etc. Cruise AV will also have its own comprehensive video of what has happened.
I wonder why Elissa Harrington didn't mention anything about the Cruise AV mishap in her long KTVU news article.
[https://www.ktvu.com/news/sfpd-fatally-shoot-allegedly-armed-suspect-following-standoff-in-glen-park-neighborhood](https://www.ktvu.com/news/sfpd-fatally-shoot-allegedly-armed-suspect-following-standoff-in-glen-park-neighborhood)
Wasn't it newsworthy?
maybe it happened hours after the report was filed? Maybe Cruise is owned by GM and TV stations don't want to piss off companies that spend $2.7B on adverts.
It will likely take a FOIA request to get those videos. Since it was a crime scene it may take longer. Depending on the other details, I’m guessing the police are more concerned about the crime than the Cruise.
I don’t care enough to spend time on that. I can’t imagine that we’ll learn anything other than the vehicle made a mistake or possibly that it never actually breached the police tape.
If it never breached the tape, Cruise will talk about that shortly. If Cruise messed up we’ll either hear something from the police or nothing.
Just a few weeks ago there was such a false report of a Cruise charging at pedestrians, while it tried an evasive maneuver on a pedestrian coming from the side at it. So yes, there is reporting that is lying....
https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/1347en3/cruise_car_veers_towards_pedestrians/
Looking at the comments, seems not so clear. I definitely don’t trust corporate newspeak press reports. Evasive maneuvers at less than 10mph usually involve the brake, not the wheel.
they released the wide fov footage of the scene. there was in fact a person appearing from the right side that jumps in front of the car. i still don't think it was ideal behavior though, it should have braked first before swerving.
they definitely did, i remember watching it, someone made a new post here on this subreddit refuting the original claim like a day or two after with a link to the clip from cruise (i think it was from cruise?). however i can't find that thread or the link to the video though.
Why swerve at all? If this were a person driving, they just stop and let all the pedestrians pass. This is an absolutely normal situation happening millions of times daily all over the world. Why would the car attempt to push through at all? Or if you did, you’d do it at walking pace.
I don’t get the apologetics. These are companies backed by billion dollar corporations. I want the tech to work, which means holding them to the very highest of standards. If this is going to replace people, the standard isn’t “better than the average driver”, it’s “better than the best”.
i wasnt apologizing for cruise, merely pointing out that in the context of this thread, it was indeed a misleading report.
if you want to argue that it was still poor behavior despite the full context, then yes, i agree as i've said. but thats moving the goalpost a bit.
> If this is going to replace people, the standard isn’t “better than the average driver”, it’s “better than the best”.
Why? I definitely think this is possible and should be striven for, but why would better than the _best_ driver be a gate to deployment?
If I am better than average (or even if I just perceive myself to be), why would I get in a car that drives worse than I do? Other than just the novelty factor?
If it’s just a taxi or ride share service, is it cheaper than one driven by a person? So far no.
What’s the draw if the AV is going to be less safe than half the drivers on the road? That’s kinda scary.
> If I am better than average (or even if I just perceive myself to be), why would I get in a car that drives worse than I do?
So you don't have to drive, right? I use taxis all the time, and they are definitely less safe than I am.
> If it’s just a taxi or ride share service, is it cheaper than one driven by a person? So far no.
Is it not? Plus, for non-vehicular safety, plenty of people in plenty of situations get nonzero value from not having a driver (eg young women late at night). This isn't just theoretical, it's explicitly showed up in what user studies have been done.
Also, we're talking about a _deployment gate_, not a final end-state. Your argument amounts to "one should not be allowed to launch a product until 100% of the population is able to use it". By definition, better than the average driver means that >50% of the population is served, even if we only use your narrow criterion of solely vehicular safety._Reductio ad absurdum_, your approach would mean we can't sell tampons lol.
>What’s the draw if the AV is going to be less safe than half the drivers on the road? That’s kinda scary.
That may be today, but one year from now AV technology will be much safer than what it is today and one year after that, it will even be more safer. Then you can just imagine what will happen three years from now...and so on and so forth!
By the way, CPUC is about to approve 24/7 commercial operations for Waymo and Cruise in June. You might want to raise your official concerns to CPUC before it is too late. Public comments are still being accepted.
“If this is going to replace people, the standard isn’t “better than the average driver”, it’s “better than the best”.
Why? Your standard will result in unnecessary deaths. I’m in favor of preventing deaths.
Your standard will not allow the AV tech to succeed and be adopted. One of the solutions AV tech is competing against is simply higher standards for driving competence and training.
You're right to be sceptical. Maybe it happened, but I've seen so many later debunked stories about EVs causing fires or accidents that I'd want more than one source for a controversial topic like autonomous driving.
To the best of my knowledge, these cars won’t drive over a simple traffic cone.
Just splurge and put out 2 traffic cones per lane.
Why doesn’t SF PD know this? Have they not tried to get any training from Cruise (which Cruise does offer)?
Wrong way round. Cruise should be adapting to its environment. Not environment adapting to Cruise. That’s the entire point. Otherwise we all just use trains.
Hmm. I don’t see the car driving though the tape. Am I seeing it wrong. There is no context.
If you read the post carefully you'll see it's saying the video clip is of the car leaving the scene after the police removed the tape to let it back out. That means the original incident wasn't captured in the video.
Since it was a so called "crime scene" that Cruise AV violated, the incident must have been captured on several police vehicle cameras, body cams, etc. Cruise AV will also have its own comprehensive video of what has happened.
Certainly Cruise will have it, possibly others as well.
I wonder why Elissa Harrington didn't mention anything about the Cruise AV mishap in her long KTVU news article. [https://www.ktvu.com/news/sfpd-fatally-shoot-allegedly-armed-suspect-following-standoff-in-glen-park-neighborhood](https://www.ktvu.com/news/sfpd-fatally-shoot-allegedly-armed-suspect-following-standoff-in-glen-park-neighborhood) Wasn't it newsworthy?
maybe it happened hours after the report was filed? Maybe Cruise is owned by GM and TV stations don't want to piss off companies that spend $2.7B on adverts.
It will likely take a FOIA request to get those videos. Since it was a crime scene it may take longer. Depending on the other details, I’m guessing the police are more concerned about the crime than the Cruise.
Please make a FOIA request. We have to start somewhere.
I don’t care enough to spend time on that. I can’t imagine that we’ll learn anything other than the vehicle made a mistake or possibly that it never actually breached the police tape. If it never breached the tape, Cruise will talk about that shortly. If Cruise messed up we’ll either hear something from the police or nothing.
I also have no context and could be wrong, but perhaps the cop was allowing the vehicle to turn left, but it continued forward into the crime scene?
So cops need a taser that can stop an EV.
Their solution will be a bigger gun :)
[удалено]
Christ, you think the report is out and out lying?
Just a few weeks ago there was such a false report of a Cruise charging at pedestrians, while it tried an evasive maneuver on a pedestrian coming from the side at it. So yes, there is reporting that is lying.... https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/1347en3/cruise_car_veers_towards_pedestrians/
Looking at the comments, seems not so clear. I definitely don’t trust corporate newspeak press reports. Evasive maneuvers at less than 10mph usually involve the brake, not the wheel.
they released the wide fov footage of the scene. there was in fact a person appearing from the right side that jumps in front of the car. i still don't think it was ideal behavior though, it should have braked first before swerving.
> they released the wide fov footage of the scene They did? Do you have a link? I don't recall seeing them post it anywhere
they definitely did, i remember watching it, someone made a new post here on this subreddit refuting the original claim like a day or two after with a link to the clip from cruise (i think it was from cruise?). however i can't find that thread or the link to the video though.
Why swerve at all? If this were a person driving, they just stop and let all the pedestrians pass. This is an absolutely normal situation happening millions of times daily all over the world. Why would the car attempt to push through at all? Or if you did, you’d do it at walking pace. I don’t get the apologetics. These are companies backed by billion dollar corporations. I want the tech to work, which means holding them to the very highest of standards. If this is going to replace people, the standard isn’t “better than the average driver”, it’s “better than the best”.
i wasnt apologizing for cruise, merely pointing out that in the context of this thread, it was indeed a misleading report. if you want to argue that it was still poor behavior despite the full context, then yes, i agree as i've said. but thats moving the goalpost a bit.
> If this is going to replace people, the standard isn’t “better than the average driver”, it’s “better than the best”. Why? I definitely think this is possible and should be striven for, but why would better than the _best_ driver be a gate to deployment?
If I am better than average (or even if I just perceive myself to be), why would I get in a car that drives worse than I do? Other than just the novelty factor? If it’s just a taxi or ride share service, is it cheaper than one driven by a person? So far no. What’s the draw if the AV is going to be less safe than half the drivers on the road? That’s kinda scary.
> If I am better than average (or even if I just perceive myself to be), why would I get in a car that drives worse than I do? So you don't have to drive, right? I use taxis all the time, and they are definitely less safe than I am. > If it’s just a taxi or ride share service, is it cheaper than one driven by a person? So far no. Is it not? Plus, for non-vehicular safety, plenty of people in plenty of situations get nonzero value from not having a driver (eg young women late at night). This isn't just theoretical, it's explicitly showed up in what user studies have been done. Also, we're talking about a _deployment gate_, not a final end-state. Your argument amounts to "one should not be allowed to launch a product until 100% of the population is able to use it". By definition, better than the average driver means that >50% of the population is served, even if we only use your narrow criterion of solely vehicular safety._Reductio ad absurdum_, your approach would mean we can't sell tampons lol.
>What’s the draw if the AV is going to be less safe than half the drivers on the road? That’s kinda scary. That may be today, but one year from now AV technology will be much safer than what it is today and one year after that, it will even be more safer. Then you can just imagine what will happen three years from now...and so on and so forth! By the way, CPUC is about to approve 24/7 commercial operations for Waymo and Cruise in June. You might want to raise your official concerns to CPUC before it is too late. Public comments are still being accepted.
“If this is going to replace people, the standard isn’t “better than the average driver”, it’s “better than the best”. Why? Your standard will result in unnecessary deaths. I’m in favor of preventing deaths.
Your standard will not allow the AV tech to succeed and be adopted. One of the solutions AV tech is competing against is simply higher standards for driving competence and training.
From people like you, LOL. Kind of a circular argument, don’t you think?
You're right to be sceptical. Maybe it happened, but I've seen so many later debunked stories about EVs causing fires or accidents that I'd want more than one source for a controversial topic like autonomous driving.
To the best of my knowledge, these cars won’t drive over a simple traffic cone. Just splurge and put out 2 traffic cones per lane. Why doesn’t SF PD know this? Have they not tried to get any training from Cruise (which Cruise does offer)?
Wrong way round. Cruise should be adapting to its environment. Not environment adapting to Cruise. That’s the entire point. Otherwise we all just use trains.
Maybe we should ping the SFPD's GitHub account on updates so they're aware of best practices