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

321–330 of 813 posts

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

#321

Post by kcrwfrd_ »

jjav wrote: post #154
jobs_throwaway wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. And to add > 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.” It's likely that a fully-attentive human driver would have done worse. With a distracted driver (a huge portion of human drivers) it could've been catastrophic.

> 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…

I drive like this too, but I think we’re a small minority. Especially here in LA.

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

#322

Post by 0xffff2 »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #305

Who is liable when FSD is used? In Waymo's case, they own and operate the vehicle so obviously they are fully liable. But in a human driver with FSD on, are they liable if FSD fails? My understanding is yes, they are. Tesla doesn't want that liability. And to me this helps explain why FSD adoption is difficult. I don't want to hand control over to a probabilistic system that might fail but I would be at fault. In oth…

I believe Mercedes is the only consumer car manufacturer that is advertising an SAE Level 3 system. My understanding is that L3 is where the manufacturer says you can take your attention off the road while the system is active, so they're assuming liability.

https://www.mbusa.com/en/owners/manuals/drive-pilot

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

#323

Post by lkbm »

mlyle wrote: post #316
lkbm wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In practice, this isn't reasonable, because "hey we're slightly better than a population that includes the drunks, the inattentive, and the infirm" is not going to win public trust. Sadly, you're right, but as rational people, we can acknowledge that it should . I care about reducing injuries and deaths, and the %tile of human performance needed for that is probably something like 30%ile. It's definitely well below…

The counterpoint, though: > > And, of course, a system that is barely better than average humans might worsen safety, if it ends up replacing driving by those who would normally drive especially safe. It's only if you get the habitually drunk (a group that is overall impoverished), the very old, etc, to ride Waymo that you reap this benefit. And they're probably not early adopters.

Uber and Lyft were supported by police departments because they reduced drunk driving. Drunk driving isn't just impoverished alcoholics. People go to bars and parts and get drunk all the time.

You also solve for people texting (or otherwise using their phones) while driving, which is pretty common among young, tech-adopting people.

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

#324

Post by butlike »

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…

Take that particular Waymo car off the road. Seems absurd, but they still hit someone.

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

#325

Post by ufmace »

themafia wrote: post #275
jobs_throwaway wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly, I'm not against constructive criticism of Waymo. I just think it's important to consider the counterfactual. You're right too that an especially prudent human driver may have avoided the scenario altogether, and Waymo should strive to be that defensive.

> I'm not against constructive criticism of Waymo. I feel like you have to say this out loud because many people in these discussions don't share this view. Billion dollar corporate experiments conducted in public are sacrosanct for some reason. > I just think it's important to consider the counterfactual More than 50% of roadway fatalities involve drugs or alcohol. If you want to spend your efforts improving safety…

> More than 50% of roadway fatalities involve drugs or alcohol. If you want to spend your efforts improving safety _anywhere_ it's right here. Self driving cars do not stand a chance of improving outcomes as much as sensible policy does. Europe leads the US here by a wide margin.

Could you spell out exactly what "sensible" policy changes you were thinking of? Driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol is already illegal in every state. Are you advocating for drastically more severe enforcement, regardless of which race the person driving is, or what it does to the national prison population? Or perhaps for "improved transit access", which is a nice idea, but will take many decades to make a real difference?

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

#326

Post by butlike »

moomoo11 wrote: post #228
boh wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the TechCrunch headline should be "Waymo hits child better than a human driver would"? Not sure if the details reflect how the general public actually interprets this story (see the actual TC headline for exhibit A).

The general public is stupid. That’s why they purchase goods and services (from others) and then cry about things they don’t and probably never will understand. And why they can be ignored and just fed some slop to feel better. I could lie but that’s the cold truth. Edit: I'm not sure if the repliers are being dense (highly likely), or you just skipped over context (you can click the "context" link if you're new here…

You ARE the general public. _I_ am the general public.

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

#327

Post by mlyle »

lkbm wrote: post #323
mlyle wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The counterpoint, though: > > And, of course, a system that is barely better than average humans might worsen safety, if it ends up replacing driving by those who would normally drive especially safe. It's only if you get the habitually drunk (a group that is overall impoverished), the very old, etc, to ride Waymo that you reap this benefit. And they're probably not early adopters.

Uber and Lyft were supported by police departments because they reduced drunk driving. Drunk driving isn't just impoverished alcoholics. People go to bars and parts and get drunk all the time. You also solve for people texting (or otherwise using their phones) while driving, which is pretty common among young, tech-adopting people.

> Drunk driving isn't just impoverished alcoholics. People go to bars and parts and get drunk all the time

Yes, but the drivers who are 5th percentile drivers who cause a huge share of the most severe accidents are "special" in various ways. Most of them are probably not autonomy early adopters.

The guy who decided to drive on the wrong side of a double yellow on a windy mountain road and hit our family car in a probable suicide attempt was not going to replace that trip with Waymo.

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

#328

Post by shadowgovt »

almosthere wrote: post #295
jobs_throwaway wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But most humans would have been aware of the big picture scenario much earlier. I wouldn't call it likely. Sure, there are definitely human drivers who are better than Waymo, but IME they're few and far between. Much more common to be distracted or careless.

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…

For what it's worth, that kind of lumping of drivers is more-or-less one of the metrics Waymo is using to self-evaluate. Perfect safety when multi-ton vehicles share space with sub-300-pound humans is impossible. But they ultimately seek to do better than humans in all contexts.

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

#329

Post by pizzafeelsright »

butlike wrote: post #324
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…

Take that particular Waymo car off the road. Seems absurd, but they still hit someone.

The car is not the problem. The problem is the intersection of human and machine operating independently of each other with conflicting intention.

I am personally a fan of entirely automated but slow traffic. 10mph limit with zero traffic is fast enough for any metro area.

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

#330

Post by butlike »

moomoo11 wrote: post #280
boh wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if they were 100% self-sufficient and understood everything they'd be smart enough to interpret a child being hit at 6 mph as progress? Fun how "general public" is always a "they" vs "you".

That's impossible though. And you and I are part of the general public as well, for things we don't understand. It isn't me vs them. It is just me being self-aware. Clearly, you had a problem with what I said so I must have struck a nerve. Welcome to the real world bro.

Your comment sounds like subconsciously you're trying to come off as stronger than the general public, which begs the question: Why? Why do you need to prove your strength over the populace?
Post reply on HN