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

Waymo updates 3,800 robotaxis after they 'drive into standing water'

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 223 posts

Re: Waymo updates 3,800 robotaxis after they 'drive into standing water'

#201

Post by NetMageSCW »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #159
Animats wrote: post #2

That's a tough problem - distinguishing wet pavement from deep water. Humans make that mistake frequently. Autonomous vehicles should probably be equipped with a water sensor. (We did that in our DARPA Grand Challenge vehicle back in 2005). Then they can enter water very cautiously and see if it's too deep. This may make them too cautious about shallow puddles on roads, though.

I thought the same thing. A very small float switch would work here. Somewhere between the radiator and the bumper. Fording depth is different for every vehicle.

By the time that triggers it is probably too late.

Re: Waymo updates 3,800 robotaxis after they 'drive into standing water'

#202

Post by NetMageSCW »

ElijahLynn wrote: post #76
yieldcrv wrote: post #57

Since recall on cars no longer means doing anything to the car's physical location I think the regulator NHSTA should update this term It just creates alarmist headlines for what's really an over the air update, although "recall" is still currently a regulatory accurate term in the vehicle space Cars, especially EVs, have many similarities to being gigantic phones. Imagine if a routine software update from Apple was…

Exactly what I was thinking, the CNBC article feels very clickbity because they don't say that in the opening lead that it's just a software update. They make it sound like they need to be taken back to some factory somewhere and get their systems updated. Which is not true because they just get a software update.

No, they said it was a recall, which means there is a legal requirement that the update be performed and tracked, which is much different from a smartphone update that is done voluntarily by the manufacturer.

Re: Waymo updates 3,800 robotaxis after they 'drive into standing water'

#203

Post by NetMageSCW »

tim333 wrote: post #105
xnx wrote: post #8

"recall" = applies software update

Wikipedia has >A product recall is a request from a manufacturer to return a product after the discovery of safety issues... I think using the term for a software update is abusing the language a bit. And may confuse people who have a real recall where the thing has to go to the dealer.

Going to the dealer has nothing to do with being a recall. A recall is when there is a legal requirement to do something that includes informing the owner, tracking which vehicles have and don’t have it done, and informing new owners if it it hasn’t been done.

Re: Waymo updates 3,800 robotaxis after they 'drive into standing water'

#205

Post by 1970-01-01 »

NetMageSCW wrote: post #201
1970-01-01 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the same thing. A very small float switch would work here. Somewhere between the radiator and the bumper. Fording depth is different for every vehicle.

By the time that triggers it is probably too late.

Time is a direct function of volume of water. A thimble size would fill in less than a second.

Re: Waymo updates 3,800 robotaxis after they 'drive into standing water'

#206

Post by mindslight »

tialaramex wrote: post #189
mindslight wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love the irony of how you wrote this comment. You say bye bye engine, and then the very next action is to walk to lunch. No mention of what happened to the car, or whether the driver had to stay and deal with it. Nope, the most significant effect on you was that you had to continue on without the car in the picture. Hunger is the real plan continuation bias.

We all took off our shoes and socks and waded to dry land, then walked to lunch, arriving late and damp. A specialist recovery company moved the dead car to a repair yard and later the mechanics replaced the engine I think? The bias isn't really about hunger, humans just tend to stick to an existing plan even once available evidence suggests that plan can't work, that's why those "Low bridge, divert" signs are less e…

yes... and why the focus of your plan was still lunch!

Re: Waymo updates 3,800 robotaxis after they 'drive into standing water'

#207

Post by tempaccount5050 »

brookst wrote: post #183
tempaccount5050 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you're going 35 mph and suddenly hit a 2 ft deep puddle (I've done this), that sensor isn't going to help at all.

Going 35mph into water of uncertain depth is a bad strategy. Even well equipped jeeps approach potentially-deep water at like 5mph.

#thanksimcured

Re: Waymo updates 3,800 robotaxis after they 'drive into standing water'

#209

Post by cma »

nomel wrote: post #197
cma wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People usually drive slow too through flooded sections. They don't have the advantage of any descent of the car diverging from HD maps, or any water level visually below HD map surface serving as an immediate warning.

> drive slow too through flooded section This first requires knowing you're in a flooded section . That's the gap here, is it not? My point is that you can't use descent AS a "flooded zone" detection because then your speed, by the harsh mistress of psychics, is very limited everywhere you go , flooded or not, because stopping distance has to be kept very short since just a few feet of overshoot, when your flood dete…

I'm assuming there is no issue detecting water over the road, only depth below it that has changed since the HD map was made.

Re: Waymo updates 3,800 robotaxis after they 'drive into standing water'

#210

Post by LorenPechtel »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #94
eraGq wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any human can distinguish wet pavement from a flooded street. Some voluntarily drive into the flooded street. And that is the difference. In a Waymo you are a prisoner, in your own car you can turn around.

Any human can't necessarily tell the difference between an inch of water, which is perfectly safe to drive on (if slow enough that you don't hydroplane), and a flooded street. They can tell the difference between an inch of water and wet pavement, though.

Definitely. I used to live in a place where the main streets would flood in any heavy storm, they effectively were the flood channel. Safe to enter? Completely impossible to determine by looking at the water, the only way I could decide was comparing what I was looking at to normal, especially looking at the curbs; or by looking at what was happening to cars on the road.
Post reply on HN