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

431–440 of 813 posts

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

#431

Post by foxglacier »

coryrc wrote: post #133
JKCalhoun wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think my problem is that it reacted after seeing the child step out from behind the SUV. An excellent driver would have already seen that possible scenario and would have already slowed to 10 MPH or less to begin with. (It's how I taught my daughter's to drive "defensively"—look for "red flags" and be prepared for the worst-case scenario. SUV near a school and I cannot see behind it? Red flag—slow the fuck down.)

First, it's still the automobile's fault. At least it was already slowed down to 17 mph to start. Remember that viral video of some Australian in a pickup ragdolling a girl across the road? Most every comment is "well he was going the speed limit no fault for him!" No asshole, you hit someone. It's your fault. He got zero charges and the girl was seriously injured.

It's not the drivers fault when they hit a kid who darts out in front of them and they had no time to react and weren't doing anything illegal like speeding.

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

#432

Post by Bratmon »

matt-attack wrote: post #71
scarmig wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on the situation, and we need more data/video. But if there are a bunch of children milling about an elementary school in a chaotic situation with lots of double parking, 17 mph is too fast, and the Waymo should have been driving more conservatively.

Exactly. That’s why I’ve always said the driving is a truly AGI requiring activity. It’s not just about sensors and speed limits and feedback loops. It’s about having a true understanding for everything that’s happening around you: Having an understanding for the density and make up of an obstacle that blew in front of you, because it was just a cardboard box. Seeing how it tumbles lightly through the wind, and formi…

Slightly off topic, but it's endlessly funny to me watching people set the bar for AGI so high that only a small percentage of humans count as AGI.

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

#433

Post by alkonaut »

Archio wrote: post #187
alkonaut wrote: post #11

And before the argument "Self driving is acceptable so long as the accident/risk is lower than with human drivers" can I please get that out of the way: No it's not. Self driving needs to be orders of magnitude safer for us to acknowledge it. If they're merely as safe or slightly safer than humans we will never accept it. Becase humans have a "skin in the game". If you drive drunk, at least you're likely to be in the…

>We accept the risks with humans because those humans accept risk. It seems very strange to defend a system that is drastically less safe because when an accident happens, at least a human will be "liable". Does a human suffering consequences (paying a fine? losing their license? going to jail?) make an injury/death more acceptable, if it wouldn't have happened with a Waymo driver in the first place?

Yes

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

#434

Post by coryrc »

yibg wrote: post #152
JKCalhoun wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think my problem is that it reacted after seeing the child step out from behind the SUV. An excellent driver would have already seen that possible scenario and would have already slowed to 10 MPH or less to begin with. (It's how I taught my daughter's to drive "defensively"—look for "red flags" and be prepared for the worst-case scenario. SUV near a school and I cannot see behind it? Red flag—slow the fuck down.)

I don't see how that's feasible without introducing a lot of friction. Near my house, almost the entire trip from the freeway to my house is via a single lane with parked cars on the side. I would have to drive 10 MPH the entire way (speed limit is 25, so 2.5x as long).

Why can't we add friction to save lives? Automobiles are the single leading cause of death for children in the USA! We're not talking about something uncommon.

Remove the free parking if that's making the road unsafe. Or drive 10 mph. Done.

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

#435

Post by estearum »

almosthere wrote: post #365
jobs_throwaway wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The computer isn't pre-programmed though. These computers are trained similar to how human brains are (though obviously brains are still vastly, vastly, vastly superior to computers for tasks like this).

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

#436

Post by alkonaut »

sowbug wrote: post #207
Archio wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We accept the risks with humans because those humans accept risk. It seems very strange to defend a system that is drastically less safe because when an accident happens, at least a human will be "liable". Does a human suffering consequences (paying a fine? losing their license? going to jail?) make an injury/death more acceptable, if it wouldn't have happened with a Waymo driver in the first place?

Even in terms of plain results, I'd say the consequences-based system isn't working so well if it's producing 40,000 US deaths annually.

That’s the fault of poor infrastructure and laws more than anything else. AV’s must drive in the same infrastructure (and can somewhat compensate).

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

#437

Post by sandworm101 »

tastyfreeze wrote: post #298
sandworm101 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 25mph school zone? That seems fast. 15mph would be more the norm, which is in line with the 17mph the car believed itself to be traveling. FYI, unless you are a commerical truck, a cop, or a racer, your speedometer will read slightly fast, sometimes as much as 5 to 10%. This is normal practice for cars as it limits manufacturer liability. You can check this using independant gps, ie not an in-dash unit. (Just imagi…

Also, a different wheel diameter than the speedometer was calibrated with and you will have a larger difference between actual velocity and speedometer reading. The odometer will also not record actual distance traveled.

It depends. I had a honda motorcycle where the speedo was 10ish % fast (not unussual on bikes due to tire shape) but the odo was accutrate. Same sensor, but the computer just counted wheel rotations slightly differently for each use.

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

#438

Post by Aloisius »

direwolf20 wrote: post #384
boothby wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the fact is that the child sustained minor injuries. And, fact: no human driver made the decision to drive a vehicle in that exact position and velocity. Imagining a human-driven vehicle in the same place is certainly valid, but your imagination is not fact. I imagine that the kid would be better off if no vehicle was there. But that's not a fact, that's an interpretation -- perhaps the kid would have ended up de…

This is a good point. Cars should be banned near schools. That is a logical conclusion given the facts.

Considering school buses kill children every year, do we ban them near schools as well?

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

#439

Post by estearum »

recursive wrote: post #350
GenerocUsername wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously a static sign is not aware of your current state, so it's message can only be interpreted as relevant to your likely state... i.e. the posted speed limit.

If you should slow down relative to the posted speed limit why not change the speed limit to reflect that directly?

Usually the reason is the "slow down" portion is very small, and it's confusing to shift down the actual speed limit for a 200 foot stretch of road then increase it again.

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

#440

Post by lurking_swe »

coryrc wrote: post #418
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.

Just about absolute. Fall off bridge onto car, I guess not. Olympic sprinter dashes out from car intentionally trying to be hit? Guess not either. Clothed mostly in black on a rainy night on a freeway? Not either. But you hit a kid in daytime? It's your fault. Period.

sorry but that doesn’t make sense.

It’s possible a driver turns a corner (not wearing sunglasses) and suddenly the sun briefly blinds them, while a kid darts into the street.

I’ve seen kids (and ADULTS!) walk on the side of the street at night in all black or very very dark clothing. It’s extra amusing when they happen to be black (are they trying to get themselves killed?) It’s not the drivers fault if they genuinely can’t see a camouflaged person. I’ve had numerous close calls like this on rural and suburban roads and I think i’m a cautious driver. Make sure you are visible at night.

Or if a kid is riding a bicycle down a hill and flies into the middle of an intersection (dumb? brakes failed? etc). very possible to accidentally mow down the child.

HOWEVER, i do agree that 95% of the time it’s the drivers fault if they hit a kid. Poor awareness and speed are the biggest factors. It is certainly not 100% of the time the drivers fault though. That’s absurd. You really misunderstand how dumb some pedestrians (and parents) are.

But….it’s all besides the point. A child that doesn’t understand the importance of cross walks and looking both ways is too young to be walking alone, period. Yes even if they’re “right”. Being right isn’t helpful if you’re dead.

Post reply on HN