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

631–640 of 813 posts

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

#631

Post by kj4211cash »

pjscott wrote: post #372
micromacrofoot wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Waymo is held to a significantly higher standard than human drivers. They have to be, as a machine can not be held accountable for a decision.

Slowing the adoption of much-safer-than-humans robotaxis, for whatever reason, has a price measured in lives. If you think that the principle you've just stated is worth all those additional dead people, okay; but you should at least be aware of the price. Failure to acknowledge the existence of tradeoffs tends to lead to people making really lousy trades, in the same way that running around with your eyes closed ten…

But we have no way of knowing whether robotaxis are safer. See, for example, the arguments raised here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2026-01-06/are-auton...

We can't blindly trust Waymo's PR releases or apples-to-oranges comparisons. That's why the bar is higher.

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

#632

Post by no-name-here »

femto wrote: post #607
okdood64 wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The performance of a human is inherently limited by biology, and the road rules are written with this in mind. Machines don't have this inherent limitation, so the rules for machines should be much stronger. I think there is an argument for incentivising the technology to be pushed to its absolute limits by making the machine 100% liable. It's not to say the accident rate has to be zero in practice, but it has to be…

At least in the interim, wouldn’t doing what you propose cause more deaths if robot drivers are less harmful than humans, but the rules require stronger than that? (I can see the point in making rules stronger as better options become available, but by that logic, shouldn't we already be moving towards requiring robots and outlawing human drivers if it's safer?)

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

#633

Post by JBlue42 »

dcanelhas wrote: post #70
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…

It does sound like a good outcome for automation. Though I suppose an investigation into the matter would arguably have to look at whether a competent human driver would be driving at 17mph (27km/h) under those circumstances to begin with, rather than just comparing the relative reaction speeds, taking the hazardous situation for granted. What I would like to see is a full-scale vehicle simulator where humans are tes…

>Though I suppose an investigation into the matter would arguably have to look at whether a competent human driver would be driving at 17mph (27km/h) under those circumstances to begin with, rather than just comparing the relative reaction speeds, taking the hazardous situation for granted.

Sure but also throw in whether that driver is staring at their phone, distracting by something else, etc. I have been a skeptic of all this stuff for a while but riding in a Waymo in heavy fog changed my mind when questioning how well I or another driver would've done at that time of day and with those conditions.

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

#634

Post by kj4211cash »

IAmBroom wrote: post #348

The statistically relevant question is: How many human drivers have hit children near elementary schools, since Waymo's last accident? If Waymo has fewer accidents where a pedestrian is hit than humans do, Waymo is safer. Period. A lot of people are conjecturing how safe a human is in certain complicated scenarios (pedestrian emerging from behind a bus, driver holds cup of coffee, the sun is in their eyes, blah blah…

Please read this article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2026-01-06/are-auton...

Spoiler: we definitely don't know yet whether Waymo is statistically safer

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

#635

Post by tape_measure »

ProAm wrote: post #612
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…

Still relies on an actual driver. “The event occurred when 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 six mph before contact was made,” a statement from Waymo…

"Waymo Driver" is their term for their self driving software.

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

#636

Post by no-name-here »

myko wrote: post #627
ProAm wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still relies on an actual driver. “The event occurred when 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 six mph before contact was made,” a statement from Waymo…

Though given the situation a human driver would not have been going 17 mph in a school zone during drop-off near double parked vehicles

1. I often see signs in such areas that flash when people exceed the limit. I’d urge you to pull over and see how often humans drive above the limit. 2. I’d urge you to also pull over and watch for how many drivers are not consistently looking at the road, such as using their phones, looking down at climate/entertainment/vehicle controls, looking at a passenger, etc

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

#637

Post by kj4211cash »

It's interesting how polarized this comments section is. Lots of people claiming a human driver would definitely have been driving slower. Lots of people claiming statistics show that human drivers do worse in this scenario aggregate. Of course neither side presenting convincing evidence.

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

#638

Post by no-name-here »

calibas wrote: post #580
rsch wrote: post #491

A human driver travelling at the same speed would have hit that child at exactly 17 mph, before their brain even registered that child was there. If that driver would also have been driving a large SUV that child would have been pushed on the ground and ran over, so probably a fatality. And also functionally nobody would have given a shit apart from some lame finger pointing at (probably) the kid’s parents. And it is…

> A human driver travelling at the same speed would have hit that child at exactly 17 mph, before their brain even registered that child was there. Not sure where this is coming from, and it's directly contradicted by the article: > Waymo said in its blog post that its “peer-reviewed model” shows a “fully attentive human driver in this same situation would have made contact with the pedestrian at approximately 14 mph…

No, Waymo’s quote supports the grandparent comment - it was about a “fully attentive human driver” - unless you are arguing that human drivers are consistently “fully attentive”?

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

#639

Post by beepbooptheory »

JBlue42 wrote: post #633
dcanelhas wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does sound like a good outcome for automation. Though I suppose an investigation into the matter would arguably have to look at whether a competent human driver would be driving at 17mph (27km/h) under those circumstances to begin with, rather than just comparing the relative reaction speeds, taking the hazardous situation for granted. What I would like to see is a full-scale vehicle simulator where humans are tes…

>Though I suppose an investigation into the matter would arguably have to look at whether a competent human driver would be driving at 17mph (27km/h) under those circumstances to begin with, rather than just comparing the relative reaction speeds, taking the hazardous situation for granted. Sure but also throw in whether that driver is staring at their phone, distracting by something else, etc. I have been a skeptic…

How would that help in the investigation?

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

#640

Post by no-name-here »

jsrozner wrote: post #515
cucumber3732842 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you imagine being dumb enough to drive over the speed limit around a double parked SUV in a school zone? Can you imagine being dumb enough to think that exceeding a one size fits all number on a sign by As if 2mph would have fundamentally changed this. Pfft. A double parked car, in an area with chock full street parking (hence the double park) and "something" that's a magnet for pedestrians, and probably a bunc…

That was my point. The Waymo should have been going much slower than 15 around the double-parked car. Potential speeding makes it worse. The fact that it’s hard to turn this into a formula is exactly why robot drivers are bad.

Are you comparing robot drivers to the existing alternative? Next time you see one of those blinking speed displays, I’d urge you to pull over and see how fast many human drivers go, and watch for what percent of them aren’t consistently even looking at the road ahead.
Post reply on HN