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

331–340 of 813 posts

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

#331

Post by dekhn »

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…

In this situation, the car was already driving under the legal speed required for a school zone (25mph when children are present) [edit: some comments in the post suggest there is a 15mph sign, which is sometimes posted; to me, driving 17mph in a 15mph zone is acceptable).

I think any fair evaluation of this (once the data was available) would conclude that Waymo was taking reasonable precautions.

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

#332

Post by Nition »

recursive wrote: post #240
2b3o4o wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the article the car was traveling at 17 miles an hour before it began braking. Presumably this was in a 25 mph school zone, so it seems the Waymo was already doing exactly what you describe - slowing down preemptively.

This is close to a particular peeve I have. Occasionally I see signs on the street that say "Slow Down". I'm not talking about the electronic ones connected to radar detectors. Just metal and paint. Here's my problem. If you follow the instructions on the sign, it still says to slow down. There's no threshold for slow enough. No matter how slow you're going, the sign says "Slow Down". So once you become ensnared in t…

A lot of clickbait headlines have the same problem. "You're using too much washing powder!"

Everyone's replying to you as if you truly don't understand the sign's intention but I'm sure you do. It's just annoying to be doing everything right and the signs and headlines are still telling you you're wrong.

There was a driving safety safety ad campaign here: "Drive to the conditions. If they change, reduce your speed." You can imagine how slow we'd all be going if the weather kept changing.

We might have OCPD.

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

#333

Post by chasd00 »

webdood90 wrote: post #140
matt-attack wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How many human drivers do you think would pass the bar you're setting? IMO, the bar should be that the technology is a significant improvement over the average performance of human drivers (which I don't think is that hard), not necessarily perfect.

The bar is very high because humans expect machines to be perfect. As for the expectation of other humans, "pobody's nerfect!"

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

#334

Post by toast0 »

throwway120385 wrote: post #269
mlyle wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many states in the US have the Basic Speed Law, e.g. California: > No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of, the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or property. The speed limit isn't supposed to be a carte blanche to drive at that speed n…

That law seems more likely to assign blame to drivers if they hit someone. So practically it's not enforced but in accidents it becomes a justification for assigning fault.

I mean yeah. If you were traveling at some speed and caused damage to persons or property, that's reasonable, but refutable, evidence that you were traveling at a speed that endangered persons or property.

And at the same time, if you were traveling at some speed and no damage was caused, it's harder to say that persons or property were endangered.

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

#335

Post by dmd »

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…

You are vastly overestimating most drivers. Most drivers aren't even looking out the window the majority of their time driving.

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

#336

Post by dekhn »

drcongo wrote: post #69
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.

Whoa! You're allowed to double park outside a school over there?!

No (excluding some circumstances like delivery vehicles).

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

#337

Post by toast0 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #188
aimor wrote: post #150

The school speed limit there is 15 mph, and that wasn't enough to prevent an accident. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/child-struck-waymo-near-... https://maps.app.goo.gl/7PcB2zskuKyYB56W8?g_st=ac

The interesting thing is a 12 mph speed limit would be honored by an autonomous vehicle but probably ignored by humans.

If the speed limit was 15 mph, and the Waymo vehicle was traveling at 17 mph before braking, why do you believe the Waymo vehicle would honor a 12 mph speed limit? It didn't honor the 15 mph limit.

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

#338

Post by bragr »

ufmace wrote: post #325
themafia wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 alr…

>Driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol is already illegal in every state.

FWIW, your first OWI in Wisconsin, with no aggravating factors, is a civil offense, not a crime, and in most states it is rare to do any time or completely lose your license for the first offense. I'm not sure exactly what OP is getting at, but DUI/OWI limits and enforcement are pretty lax in the US compared to other countries. Our standard .08 BAC limit is a lot higher than many other countries.

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

#339

Post by IAmBroom »

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…

> A human brain automatically thinks of all the scenarios, ...

Patently, obviously false. A human brain will automatically think of SOME scenarios. For instance, if a collision seems imminent, and the driver is holding a cup of coffee, these ideas are likely to occur to the driver:

IF I GRAB THE STEERING WHEEL AND BRAKE HARD, I MIGHT NOT HIT THAT PEDESTRIAN IN FRONT OF ME.

IF I DON'T CONTINUE HOLDING THE COFFEE CAREFULLY, I MIGHT GET SCALDED.

THIS SONG ON MY RADIO IS REALLY ROCKING!

IF I YANK MY WHEEL TO THE LEFT, I MIGHT HIT A CAR INSTEAD OF A HUMAN.

IF I BRAKE HARD OR SWERVE AT ANY TIME IN TRAFFIC, I CAN CAUSE AN ACCIDENT.

Experiments with callosal patients (who have damaged the connective bridge between the halves of their brains) demonstrate that this is a realistic picture of how the brain makes decisions. It offers up a set of possible actions, and attempts to choose the optimal one and discard all others.

A computer program would do likewise, EXCEPT it won't care about the coffee cup nor the radio (remove two bad choices from consideration).

It still has one bad choice (do nothing), but the SNR is much improved.

I'm not being hyperbolic; self-preservation (focusing on keeping that coffee in my hand) is a vital factor in decision-making for a human.

> ...where Waymo has pre-programmed ones (and some NN based ones).

Yes. And as time goes on, more and better-refined scenarios will be added to its programming. Eventually, it's reasonable to believe the car software will constantly reassess how many humans are within HUMAN_RUN_DISTANCE + CAR_TRAVEL_DISTANCE in the next block, and begin tracking any that in an unsafe margin. No human on Earth does that, continually, without fail.

> Does a human brain carry some worry that they suddenly decide to run and try to cross the street after the dumpster? Does Waymo carry that worry or just continue to drive at the exact same speed.

You continue to imply that Waymo cannot ever improve on its current programming. Does it currently consider this situation? Probably not. Will it? Probably.

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

#340

Post by Natsu »

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…

> 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 there?

Waymos constantly track pedestrians nearby, you can see it on the status screen if you ride in one. So it would be both better able to find pedestrians and react as soon as one was on a collision course. They have a bit more visibility than humans do due to the sensor placement, so they also can see things that aren't that visible to a person inside the car, not to mention being constantly aware of all 360 degrees.

While I suppose that in theory, a sufficiently paranoid human might outdo the robot, it looks to me like it's already well above the median here.

Post reply on HN