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

341–350 of 813 posts

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

#341

Post by decimalenough »

themafia wrote: post #308
jobs_throwaway wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Yes, and I find it annoying that some people do seem to think Waymo should never be criticized. That said, we already have an astounding amount of data, and that data clearly shows that the experiment is successful in reduc…

> and that data clearly shows that the experiment is successful in reducing crashes I disagree. You need way more data, like orders of magnitude more. There are trillions of miles driven in the US every year. Those miles often include driving in inclement weather which is something Waymo hasn't even scraped the surface of yet. > without question There are _tons_ of questions. This is not even a simple problem. I cann…

You're moving the goalposts. The claim is that Waymos are safer than human drivers in the areas and under the conditions where they currently operate.

Yeah, I'm sure Waymos would struggle in a blizzard in Duluth, but a) so would a human and b) Waymos aren't driving there. (Yet.)

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

#342

Post by chasd00 »

fortran77 wrote: post #189

I'm a big fan of Waymo and have enjoyed my Waymo rides. And I don't think Waymno did anything "bad" here. > The young pedestrian “suddenly entered the roadway from behind a tall SUV, moving directly into our vehicle’s path,” the company said in its blog post. Waymo said its vehicle “immediately detected the individual as soon as they began to emerge from behind the stopped vehicle.” BUT! As a human driver, I avoid dr…

> Waymos should use the same rationale. If you can avoid going past a school zone when kids are likely to be there, do it!

I can see that, prioritize obstacle predictability over transit time. A school zone at certain times of day is very unpredictable with respect to obstacles but a more car congested area would be easier to navigate but slower. Same goes for residential areas during Halloween.

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

#343

Post by simianwords »

alkonaut wrote: post #63
criddell wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Orders of magnitude? Something like 100 people die on the road in the US each day. If self-driving tech could save 10 lives per day, that’s wouldn’t be good enough?

"It depends". If 50 people die and 50 people go to jail, vs. 40 people die and their families are left wondering if someone will take responsibility? Then that's not immediately standing out as an improvement just because fewer died. We can do better I think. The problem is simply one of responsibility.

In such situations it’s useful to put yourself in a hypothetical situation. Rules: you can’t pick who you will be: one of the dead or alive. It will be assigned randomly.

So would you pick situation 1 or 2?

I would personally pick 1.

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

#344

Post by qwertyuiop_ »

Couldn’t be anymore callous and clinical. This press release alone makes me want not to use their service.

* “Following contact, the pedestrian stood up immediately, walked to the sidewalk, and we called 911. The vehicle remained stopped, moved to the side of the road, and stayed there until law enforcement cleared the vehicle to leave the scene,” Waymo wrote in the post.*

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

#345

Post by [deleted] »

orwin wrote: post #100
direwolf20 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Immediately hitting the brakes when a child suddenly appears in front of you, instead of waiting 500ms like a human, and thereby hitting the child at a speed of 6 instead of 14 is a success. What else to you expect them to do, only run on grade–separated areas where children can't access? Blare sirens so children get scared away from roads? Shouldn't human–driven cars do the same thing then?

17 mph is way too fast near a school if it's around the time children are getting out (or in).

[deleted]

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

#346

Post by tialaramex »

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 principle, attentive drivers, who have either somehow come independently to the appropriate understanding or have been trained in how to react to hazards ahead...

https://www.gov.uk/theory-test/hazard-perception-test

... could in some circumstances know that there's a likelihood that a child will emerge suddenly and reduce their speed in anticipation where circumstances allow.

Note that: If you cut speed but other drivers can't see why they may overtake, even unsafely, because you are a nuisance to them. Slowing in anticipation that a child will run out from behind the SUV, only for a car behind you to accelerate around you and smack straight into the child at even higher speed, is not the desired outcome even though you didn't hurt anybody...

And yes, we'd need to see the video to know. It's like that Sully scenario. In a prepared test skilled pilots were indeed able to divert and land, but Sully wasn't prepared for a test. You're trained to expect engine failure in an aeroplane - it will happen sometimes so you must assume that, but for a jet liner you don't anticipate losing both engines, that doesn't happen. There's "Obviously that child is going in the road" and "Where the fuck did they come from?" and a lot in between and we're unlikely to ever know for sure.

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

#347

Post by accidc »

jobs_throwaway wrote: post #8
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…

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 depends. A driver may have seen a child dart behind a car and expect them to emerge on the other side.

Does Waymo have the same object permanence and trajectory prediction (combined) to that of a human?

Once the video evidence it out, it might become evident.

Generally Waymo seems to be a responsible actor so maybe that is the case and this can help demonstrate potential benefits of autonomous vehicles.

Alternatively, if even they can't get this right then it may cast doubts about the maturity of the entire ecosystem

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

#348

Post by IAmBroom »

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 blah). These scenarios are distractions from the actual facts.

Is Waymo statistically safer? (spoiler: yes)

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

#349

Post by trhway »

oakesm9 wrote: post #173
jjav wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

As someone who lives on a residential street right by a primary school in the UK, the majority of drivers are going over 20mph even at the peak time when there are children everywhere. While in theory human drivers should be situationally aware of the higher risks of children being around, the reality is that the majority will be in their own bubble of being late to drop their kid off and searching for the first free…

the human driver would usually drive more closely to the centerline of such a residential road. If the road is clear ahead i'd drive almost over the centerline of the road having enough clearance between my path and the parked cars for any such "jumper" to be visible long enough for me to react. If there is an opposite traffic i get back strictly into my lane and slow down much more if the parked cars are close and they block sidewalk view, etc.

The autonomous cars have really got more aggressive recently as i mentioned before:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46199294

Also Waymo handling road visibility issue:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39298290

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

#350

Post by recursive »

GenerocUsername wrote: post #266
recursive wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Obviously a static sign is not aware of your current state, so it's message can only be interpreted as relevant to your likely state... i.e. the posted speed limit.

If you should slow down relative to the posted speed limit why not change the speed limit to reflect that directly?
Post reply on HN