Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Waymo robotaxi hits a child near an elementary school in Santa Monica

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 813 posts

Re: Waymo robotaxi hits a child near an elementary school in Santa Monica

#361

Post by [deleted] »

recursive wrote: post #356
Nition wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of clickbait headlines have the same problem. "You're using too much washing powder!" Everyone's replying to you as if you truly don't understand the sign's intention but I'm sure you do. It's just annoying to be doing everything right and the signs and headlines are still telling you you're wrong. There was a driving safety safety ad campaign here: "Drive to the conditions. If they change, reduce your speed."…

Yes. You have understood precisely the spirit in which I intended it. In advertising: "Treat yourself. You deserve it!" Me: What if someone who didn't deserve it heard this message. How can you possibly know what I deserve? Do all people deserve to treat themselves? Is the notion of deserving or treating really so vacuous? Normies: jfc

[deleted]

Re: Waymo robotaxi hits a child near an elementary school in Santa Monica

#362

Post by Aloisius »

throwway120385 wrote: post #262
WheatMillington wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be implying that there are no circumstances in which a vehicle can hit a pedestrian and the driver not be at fault... which is absurd.

No it's not. The same principle applies to rules of right of way on the water. Technically the 32 foot sailboat has right of way over a triple-E because the triple-E uses mechanical propulsion. You have a responsibility to be cautious in heavy equipment no matter what the signage on the road says, and that includes keeping a speed at which you can stop safely if a person suddenly steps onto the road in situations whe…

I don't think that's a great analogy since a sailboat's right-of-way isn't unlimited and it can certainly be found at fault for a collision with a triple-E container ship - especially given maritime law uses the comparative fault system where fault is shared between parties.

For instance, a sailboat must alter course if a collision can't be avoided by the give-way vessel alone:

Rule 17(b):

> When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid collision.

So if you sail your boat into a container ship and it tries to give way, but doesn't have the ability to do so quickly enough to prevent a collision, you're violating the rules if you don't also alter course as well.

Plus, if we're going to connect this to a pedestrian, if a sailboat suddenly cut in front of a container ship with zero concern for its limited maneuverability/ability to stop, the sailboat would also violate Rule 2 by neglecting precaution required by seamen and failing to consider the limitations of the vessels involved.

Re: Waymo robotaxi hits a child near an elementary school in Santa Monica

#363

Post by sebzim4500 »

Spivak wrote: post #307
maerF0x0 wrote: post #87

Meanwhile the news does not report the other ~7,000 children per year injured as pedestrians in traffic crashes in the US. I think the overall picture is a pretty fantastic outcome -- even a single event is a newsworthy moment _because it's so rare_ . > The NHTSA’s Office of Defects Investigation is investigating “whether the Waymo AV exercised appropriate caution given, among other things, its proximity to the eleme…

People's standards for when they're willing to cede control over their lives both as the passenger and the pedestrian in the situation to a machine are higher than a human. And for not totally irrational reasons like machine follows programming and does not fear death, or with 100% certainty machine has bugs which will eventually end up killing someone for a really stupid reason—and nobody wants that to be them. Then…

>People's standards for when they're willing to cede control over their lives both as the passenger and the pedestrian in the situation to a machine are higher than a human.

Are they? It is now clear that Tesla FSD is much worse than a human driver and yet there has been basically no attempt by anyone in government to stop them.

Re: Waymo robotaxi hits a child near an elementary school in Santa Monica

#364

Post by jerlam »

netsharc wrote: post #351
jjav wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's likely that a fully-attentive human driver would have done worse. We'd have to see video of the full scene to have a better judgement, but I wouldn't call it likely. The car reacted quickly once it saw the child. Is that enough? But most humans would have been aware of the big picture scenario much earlier. Are there muliple kids milling around on the sidewalk? Near a school? Is there a big truck/SUV parked th…

Curiously enough Google could have access to how fast humans usually drive through that street.. if they record people's Google Maps trips, they can show the court that "Look, 80% of Google Maps users drive through here at 30 mph!".

Google might even know how many drivers aren't obeying the speed limit or slow-rolling through stop signs. I wonder if they already have partnerships with law enforcement to detect areas where the traffic law is more ignored than others.

Re: Waymo robotaxi hits a child near an elementary school in Santa Monica

#365

Post by almosthere »

jobs_throwaway wrote: post #304
almosthere wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it makes sense to lump some drivers better than waymo and worse than waymo. A human brain automatically thinks of all the scenarios, where Waymo has pre-programmed ones (and some NN based ones). So it's scenarios by scenario. Consider this scenario: 5 kids are walking on the sidewalk while you're driving past them. But suddenly a large dumpster is blocking your view of them just as you pass. You saw the…

> A human brain automatically thinks of all the scenarios I don't think this is true. There are infinitely many scenarios in a complex situation like a road with traffic, cars parked, pedestrians about, weather, etc. My brain might be able to quickly assess a handful, but certainly not all.

God I wish I re-read my statement, I was more focused on Humans think of an unlimited number of scenarios - not necessarily all. A computer will only think of pre-programmed ones.

Re: Waymo robotaxi hits a child near an elementary school in Santa Monica

#366

Post by almosthere »

IAmBroom wrote: post #339
almosthere wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it makes sense to lump some drivers better than waymo and worse than waymo. A human brain automatically thinks of all the scenarios, where Waymo has pre-programmed ones (and some NN based ones). So it's scenarios by scenario. Consider this scenario: 5 kids are walking on the sidewalk while you're driving past them. But suddenly a large dumpster is blocking your view of them just as you pass. You saw the…

> A human brain automatically thinks of all the scenarios, ... Patently, obviously false. A human brain will automatically think of SOME scenarios. For instance, if a collision seems imminent, and the driver is holding a cup of coffee, these ideas are likely to occur to the driver: IF I GRAB THE STEERING WHEEL AND BRAKE HARD, I MIGHT NOT HIT THAT PEDESTRIAN IN FRONT OF ME. IF I DON'T CONTINUE HOLDING THE COFFEE CAREF…

God I wish I re-read my statement, I was more focused on Humans think of an unlimited number of scenarios - not necessarily all. A computer will only think of pre-programmed ones.

Re: Waymo robotaxi hits a child near an elementary school in Santa Monica

#367

Post by WalterBright »

BugsJustFindMe wrote: post #2

From the Waymo blog... > the pedestrian suddenly entered the roadway from behind a tall SUV, moving directly into our vehicle's path. Our technology immediately detected the individual as soon as they began to emerge from behind the stopped vehicle. The Waymo Driver braked hard, reducing speed from approximately 17 mph to under 6 mph before contact was made. > Following contact, the pedestrian stood up immediately, w…

When I was a boy, I ran into the street from between two parked cars. I did not notice the car coming, but he noticed me popping out from nowhere, and screeched to a stop.

I was very very lucky.

Re: Waymo robotaxi hits a child near an elementary school in Santa Monica

#368

Post by fwip »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #271
fwip wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The default, with good visibility in ideal conditions, should be to not exceed the speed limit. In a school zone, when in a situation of low visibility, the car should likely be going significantly below the speed limit. So, it's not a case of 17mph vs 15mph, but more like 17mph vs 10mph or 5mph.

So let me get this straight, the car should have been going less than the speed limit, but the fact that it was going a hair over the speed limit is the problem? The car clearly failed to identify that this was a situation it needed to be going slower. The fact that it was going 17 instead of 15 is basically irrelevant here except as fodder for moral posturing. If the car is incapable of identifying those situations…

It is a contributing factor.

If the car is going slower than the speed limit in this scenario, it is difficult to tell over the internet if that speed was appropriate. If the car is going over the speed limit, it is obviously inappropriate.

Re: Waymo robotaxi hits a child near an elementary school in Santa Monica

#369

Post by enlightens »

jefftk wrote: post #224
zdragnar wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most US states cap speed limits around schools at 15mph when children are present. There may also be blinking lights above these signs during times that will be likely. I'm not sure how much of that Waymo's cars take into account, as the law technically takes into account line of sight things that a person could see but Waymo's sensors might not, such as children present on a sidewalk.

> Most US states cap speed limits around schools at 15mph when children are present. Are you sure? The ones I've seen have usually been 20 or 25mph. Looking on Image Search ( https://www.google.com/search?q=school+zone+speed+limit+sign ) and limiting just to the ones that are photos of real signs by the side of the road, the first 10 are: 25, 30, 25, 20, 35, 15, 20, 55, 20, 20. So only one of these was 15.

Here's a random elementary school in Santa Monica with a 15mph sign https://www.google.com/maps/place/McKinley+Elementary+School...

Re: Waymo robotaxi hits a child near an elementary school in Santa Monica

#370

Post by okdood64 »

aanet wrote: post #234

This is the classic Suddenly Revealed Pedestrian test case, which afaik, most NCAP (like EuroNCAP, Japan NCAP) have as part of their standard testing protocols. Having performed this exact test on 3 dozen vehicles (L2/L3/L4) for several AV companies in the Bay Area [1], I would say that Waymo's response, per their blog post [2] has been textbook compliance. (I'm not defending their performance... just their response…

> Waymo will still have to accept some responsibility

Why? This is only true if they weren't supposed to be on the road in the first place. Which is not true.

Post reply on HN