Allow me to divulge a bit of behind-the-scenes intrigue regarding the San Francisco Fire Department (SFFD): they have an undying affection for oversized, cumbersome, and fiscally extravagant trucks.

In fact, their adoration for these mammoth vehicles knows no bounds, leading them into a protracted skirmish with advocates for pedestrian safety. You see, the streets of San Francisco can’t undergo the sort of straightforward, commonsense traffic improvements (such as narrower lanes or strategically placed “bulb outs”) to enhance pedestrian safety. Why? Because the SFFD fervently argues that their trucks must meet the most exacting standards for a “proper job”.

SFFD Assistant Deputy Chief Ken Lombardi told KQED that the department isn’t necessarily opposed to buying more maneuverable equipment. “It’s not that simple,” he said. “We’re trying to buy a smaller engine. We just need to make sure that engine’s going to do the proper job.”

“Proper job,” you say? Well, when it comes to fitting snugly into the intricate urban tapestry, SFFD seems to be missing the mark in a rather grandiose fashion. In fact, there’s nary a trace of effort from them in the direction of procuring more petite fire-fighting vehicles.

Now, the question of whether the SFFD could swiftly acquire smaller trucks is akin to pondering if chickens possess lips – the answer is glaringly obvious! Yes, they could easily adopt compact vehicles, much like the rest of the civilized world.

Unfortunately, the SFFD’s progress report in this regard appears to be a blank slate, and as a consequence, the safety of pedestrians in San Francisco remains a precarious affair. This, quite ironically, places the fire department at the center of a contentious debate concerning the causes of pedestrian fatalities.

And now, armed with this vital context, the SFFD contends that the driverless Cruise vehicles failed to provide ample space for their sizable emergency trucks to maneuver and save a critically injured pedestrian.

Dear SFFD, it’s high time you caught on to the fact that your penchant for excessive size and this “minimum 20 foot clearance” notion is not only perilous but also entirely unworkable.

“Other cities and towns across the country also have small streets and sharp turns and have purchased specialized vehicles that can operate in these environments,” Rose said in his 17-page report.

Rose said those vehicles are not necessarily shorter, or lacking features of a more traditional engine, but are designed to make them more maneuverable.

The report was requested by Supervisor Scott Wiener, who has been frustrated by the Fire Department’s insistence on maintaining a 20-foot — or sometimes wider — minimum street width.

Enough of this nonsense already.

SFFD has not been “voicing concerns” about pedestrian safety — the department has been interfering with street redesigns that improve pedestrian safety. And the inexcusable part is that SFFD’s pushback against measures to calm traffic and make it safer for people to cross the street appears to be based on unfounded fears.

As a long-time constant critic of driverless engineering, I reluctantly have to admit Cruise is falsely accused here of obstruction by SFFD.

The actual obstructionist to saving pedestrian life has been the SFFD. They are apparently not based in any safety reality.

…”the most significant relationship to injury accidents” was street width. “As street widths widen, accidents per mile per year increases exponentially, and the safest residential street width are the narrowest (curb face).” […] SFFD Fire Chief Johanne Hayes-White also made the erroneous yet unchallenged claim in a recent Examiner article that 74 percent of pedestrians were at fault for their own injuries, though she later said she was “misinformed.”

Yeah, misinformed is putting it lightly.

They know the Bayview doesn’t even have any crosswalks, so how could a dead pedestrian there ever avoid being blamed given the city’s failure to provide any safe zones?! Nice one SFFD.

This fire department has displayed so much incompetence, generated a reputation on safety so bad, that it sets up an ignorant and unhinged robot company, of all things, to look like the good guys in a pedestrian safety fight.

I’ve looked at the evidence of this incident and what I see is SFFD trying to gin up their old dull “special city” saw about fear of clearance.

I must confess, I’ve never been a fan of taxis, and these mostly fraudulent driverless taxis have only intensified my dislike. However, it’s impossible to deny that the SFFD’s insistence on brandishing their antiquated “clearance room” banner in such a brazen manner is nothing short of absurd. It’s the very definition of hubris. If you take a gander at the video, it’s clear that Cruise isn’t in the wrong when it comes to clearances.

With AI entering the news scene this one particular showdown over a pedestrian fatality has garnered significant attention, unlike countless other pedestrian harm the SFFD may have been involved in. Exposure is a good thing, as a showy AI operation may just be the thing that ushers in greater scrutiny of the SFFD’s pedestrian policies.

Perhaps, just perhaps, Cruise, armed with their deep pockets and formidable legal team, can shine a spotlight on the SFFD’s longstanding errors in judgment. The streets need to be narrowed, and the SFFD’s obstructions and negligence should be subjected to meticulous examination.

In their legal battle, Cruise’s attorneys could argue that the SFFD has knowingly permitted casualties by insisting on unnecessarily wider streets and deploying heavy large vehicles clearly ill-suited for urban emergencies.