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

Waymo in Dallas

waymo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 754 posts

Re: Waymo in Dallas

#201

Post by sebzim4500 »

cortesoft wrote: post #60

I live very close to LAX, and we have hundreds of Waymos in our area. At first i was a little weary, and kinda weirded out by all of them. They have become completely normal, and cause WAY fewer traffic incidents than human drivers. They are very predictable, and will always let you pull in front of them when changing lanes (unlike a lot of other LA drivers). I have seen a few incidents where they seem 'stuck', and i…

>You can control the temperature and music from your phone

That's really cool but makes sense. Can't wait for them to be available in London. I'd use them instead of Uber even if they cost much more.

Re: Waymo in Dallas

#202

Post by inigyou »

echelon wrote: post #174
WarmWash wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and cause WAY fewer traffic incidents than human drivers. Ironically the best way to verify this is that when they do cause traffic issues, it becomes national news. Imagine breaking down and blocking an intersection in Edgewood Georgia, and then getting a call that night from your Uncle in Oregon saying he saw your breakdown on the news...

> Edgewood Georgia, I love when HN mentions my state or city, but that's the road and neighborhood one block down from me. I feel seen. To add something more substantive to this thread, apparently Google's deal with Uber for distribution has become incredibly adversarial in our state. Uber won't explicitly let you book a Waymo or let you know if you're in the Waymo range.

Thank you so much for revealing your location. This data point has been added to your shadow profile. Kind regards, Palantir.

Re: Waymo in Dallas

#203

Post by sebzim4500 »

sudokatsu wrote: post #96
epolanski wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very interesting, because on one side we have clear data showing that autonomous cars at the Waymo level are safer than humans. On the other hand we don't give technology the same pass we give to humans, meaning that we don't tolerate machine incidents the same way we tolerate human ones. Which means that self-driving cars need to be a magnitude of order safer than humans. And even though a self-driving car will…

We don’t tolerate machine incidents because who is liable if an accident occurs? A company with a $4.6 trillion market cap? They’re not a legal opponent any of us really want to take on.

Good point because massive insurance companies can't afford lawyers and no one ever sues large companies.

Re: Waymo in Dallas

#204

Post by inigyou »

ericmay wrote: post #177
stefan_ wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an odd claim. Human failures are uncorrelated, but the Waymos all running the same software must be expected to fail in the same way, in the situations in which they fail. Which is why they often make the news; one Waymo stuck soon sees many of its brethren join it.

Don't humans fail in the same way too, broadly speaking? Wouldn't it depend on how you categorize failure? If a Waymo failed because it missed a stop sign, and then another Waymo failed because it was confused about some strange markings on the road, is that not failing "the same way" in the same sense that a person failing to yield or driving drunk?

I think they're saying if one waymo misses a stop sign every waymo will miss the same stop sign

Re: Waymo in Dallas

#205

Post by SR2Z »

inigyou wrote: post #200
arjie wrote: post #58

Surprisingly low hype for a company running perhaps the most advanced consumer-interactive robots. I’m quite fond of these machines and will periodically rescue them when someone has misused them (door not closed, most commonly). Hope they do well. Very good road participants.

They're also covered in cameras the police have access to, which have been used to track down legal protestors in the past. That's why there was a spate of people setting them on fire a few months ago. Basically, every Waymo car is a Flock camera.

Stop spreading FUD. The police do not in any meaningful way "have access" to Waymo cameras.

They can subpoena recordings and Waymo will call the cops on you if you commit a crime in one of their cars, but your statement implies Flock-like access which the police simply don't have.

Re: Waymo in Dallas

#206

Post by inigyou »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #181
munk-a wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> or use the car as a weapon on christmas markets On the contrary, autonomous vehicles (especially if something like automated package delivery becomes an offered service) allow car bombs without the suicide bomber inside. Instead you just place an explosive in the device and send it to the intended destination - as an organization the primary concern then becomes whether the ride is traceable back to you which might…

> autonomous vehicles (especially if something like automated package delivery becomes an offered service) allow car bombs without the suicide bomber inside Every city has courier services, including Uber.

An Uber driver was recently incarcerated for driving a package of drugs 7 hours.

Re: Waymo in Dallas

#207

Post by 4fr2 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #105
overgard wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you can just look at the statistics though. What I mean is that, the main issue is that the category of mistakes they make are going to be inherently different from the category of mistakes that humans make. IE, humans are more likely to make emotional mistakes, but self driving is probably more likely to make perceptual mistakes or fail to respond to novel situations. I think the "fail to respond to no…

> humans are more likely to make emotional mistakes, but self driving is probably more likely to make perceptual mistakes or fail to respond to novel situations Humans fail chaotically. AVs, at least Waymos, fail safely. In urban environments, there is a case to be made within a few years for banning (or making it massively cumbersome) to manually pilot a private vehicle.

[dead]

Re: Waymo in Dallas

#208

Post by SR2Z »

slg wrote: post #180
WarmWash wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and cause WAY fewer traffic incidents than human drivers. Ironically the best way to verify this is that when they do cause traffic issues, it becomes national news. Imagine breaking down and blocking an intersection in Edgewood Georgia, and then getting a call that night from your Uncle in Oregon saying he saw your breakdown on the news...

Would we apply this same logic to Tesla Autopilot? As a disclaimer, this is neither an anti-Waymo comment or a pro-Tesla comment, I just find in interesting how these small sample size incidents are both covered and perceived in the absence of actual verifiable safety statistics.

I'm sure we could, but since vehicles using Tesla FSD require human supervision almost everywhere and Tesla is aggressive about getting drivers in autopilot-related crashes to sign NDAs the comparison is kind of moot.

Re: Waymo in Dallas

#209

Post by vb-8448 »

skybrian wrote: post #157
vb-8448 wrote: post #138

I'm just curious how it works on the legal side: if a human run the red light he gets a fine, who gets fined with a waymo car? If the car I'm in cause a big damage or kill someone? I guess the damage will be paid by the insurance but whom insurance? Mine or waymos? And what about criminal implications? Insurance doesn't cover thoose for sure.

It should be the same as for any public transport: it's the service operator's responsibility to run the system. The rider doesn't need insurance. I imagine Google has enough money that they can self-insure. Particularly since it's a very low accident rate.

What about criminal implications?

PS: i guess the insurance on self diving cars is a little bit different and the accident rate is only part of the picture. Just an example: humans don't get hacked.

Re: Waymo in Dallas

#210

Post by lokar »

varenc wrote: post #191
massysett wrote: post #153

How do the cars do when breaking a rule is necessary? For instance, a car is broken down in the one forward lane of a two-lane road, requiring the waymo to cross the double-yellow line to get around it. Or, a signal is red for so long that obviously its car detector isn’t working.

It handles these circumstances. Definitely seen it cross to the other side with oncoming traffic to get around a truck blocking a lane. For the signal light, never experienced that, but I imagine after awhile it'd figure it out. Possibly with the assistance of a remote human telling it.

I was in one stopped as the first car at a red light. The next section of road was full of cars waiting on another red light.

Our light changed to green and the Waymo waited until the next red turned green and then proceeded into the intersection in anticipation of the cars ahead moving.

Post reply on HN