(Replying to PARENT post)

πŸ‘€wstrangeπŸ•‘2yπŸ”Ό0πŸ—¨οΈ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Presumably this is why the permit is being suspended:

"The AV detected a collision, bringing the vehicle to a stop; then attempted to pull over to avoid causing further road safety issues, pulling the individual forward approximately 20 feet."

First of all, I find it ironic that the human driver is still at large. I'm sure the Cruise car recorded the plate and they passed this to the police.

Second, the corporate speak on the Cruise release is very good. Notice how it says "pulling the individual forward", in other words, the car dragged the person while it attempted to get out of the way. I guess nobody thought about that edge case. And they released a completely irrelevant simulation showing that if the other car had been an AV this wouldn't have happened. Yet, the real issue with the Cruise AV is that after a collision it just blindly tried to pull over and it dragged the person. The same thing would have happened if the person had simply collided with the car on their own.

πŸ‘€eltetoπŸ•‘2yπŸ”Ό0πŸ—¨οΈ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

> The AV detected a collision, bringing the vehicle to a stop; then attempted to pull over to avoid causing further road safety issues, pulling the individual forward approximately 20 feet.

Jesus Christ! Good riddance, I'm glad their permits are revoked. Can you imagine witnessing this and watching an autonomous vehicle slowly crushing and dragging someone underneath? That 20 ft must have felt like forever to witness. Let alone experience.

πŸ‘€hardcopyπŸ•‘2yπŸ”Ό0πŸ—¨οΈ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Currently, the human driver responsible for the incident is still at large

I welcome our robot overlords.

πŸ‘€moneycantbuyπŸ•‘2yπŸ”Ό0πŸ—¨οΈ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Reading this, it rather seems like the AV wasn't at fault in the accident itself and handled itself well. However, after coming to a complete stop, while the pedestrian was still on the ground in front of it, it then started again and drove into the pedestrian and continued for another 20 feet pushing the pedestrian along (and presumably under) the car. They say it did this to leave the car in a safe place, but this differs drastically from a normal driver who'd get out and look round the vehicle before moving it anywhere.

I'd say the initial hit probably did a chunk of damage to the pedestrian, but quite likely not fatal unless their head hit the ground. But then being driven over and dragged 20 feet is going to be pretty scary and in all likelihood cause more serious injuries than the initial impact.

πŸ‘€ralferooπŸ•‘2yπŸ”Ό0πŸ—¨οΈ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

Tragic all around.

β€œThe Nissan Sentra then tragically struck and propelled the pedestrian into the path of the AV. The AV biased rightward before braking aggressively, but still made contact with the pedestrian. The AV detected a collision, bringing the vehicle to a stop; then attempted to pull over to avoid causing further road safety issues, pulling the individual forward approximately 20 feet. The driver of the Nissan Sentra fled the scene after the collision.”

πŸ‘€gregsadetskyπŸ•‘2yπŸ”Ό0πŸ—¨οΈ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

"A dark colored Nissan Sentra was stopped in the adjacent lane to the left of the AV. When the light turned green, the Nissan Sentra and the AV entered the intersection. Against a red light, a pedestrian entered the crosswalk on the opposite side of Market Street across from the vehicles, passed completely through the AV’s lane of travel, then stopped mid-crosswalk in front of the Nissan Sentra. The Nissan Sentra then tragically struck and propelled the pedestrian into the path of the AV."

So there was this woman crossing a crosswalk in front of these two cars when she shouldn't have. I guess I don't understand why neither car stopped in front of the crosswalk when they saw this woman in the middle of the crosswalk (illegally).

IMO it was a bit aggressive for Cruise to have seen this woman jaywalking and still crossed the crosswalk after detecting that the woman had just passed the car but still in the middle of the crosswalk.

πŸ‘€tempsyπŸ•‘2yπŸ”Ό0πŸ—¨οΈ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

>A Cruise AV named Panini

This sort of nonsense where you take a serious statement and tell me the cutesy "name" of the autonomous vehicle really detracts from the seriousness of the issue. Also, the last paragraph where they try to talk about how their vehicle wouldn't have made the same mistake as the human driver, glosses over the actual issues the cruise car had which a human driver would have known not to do.

πŸ‘€LegitShadyπŸ•‘2yπŸ”Ό0πŸ—¨οΈ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

> This is called achieving a minimal risk condition

so pulling over after a collision, which resulted in dragging the human 20 feet is an interpretation of this regulation.

sounds like California and Federal AVs regulations are equally not safe for the public's operations

which is a good enough reason to revoke permits too, until they fix this together with the private industry

πŸ‘€yieldcrvπŸ•‘2yπŸ”Ό0πŸ—¨οΈ0