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

491–500 of 813 posts

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

#491

Post by rsch »

A human driver travelling at the same speed would have hit that child at exactly 17 mph, before their brain even registered that child was there. If that driver would also have been driving a large SUV that child would have been pushed on the ground and ran over, so probably a fatality. And also functionally nobody would have given a shit apart from some lame finger pointing at (probably) the kid’s parents.

And it is not the child’s or their parents’ fault either:

Once you accept elementary school aged children exist, you have to accept they will sometimes run out like this. Children just don’t have the same impulse control as adults. And honestly even for adults stepping out a bit from behind an obstacle in the path of a car is an easy mistake to make. Don’t forget that for children an SUV is well above head height so it isn’t even possible for them to totally avoid stepping out a bit before looking. (And I don’t think stepping out vs. running out changes the outcome a lot)

This is why low speed limits around schools exist.

So I would say the Waymo did pretty well here, it travelled at a speed where it was still able to avoid not only a fatality but also major injury.

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

#492

Post by aembleton »

foxglacier wrote: post #431
coryrc wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, it's still the automobile's fault. At least it was already slowed down to 17 mph to start. Remember that viral video of some Australian in a pickup ragdolling a girl across the road? Most every comment is "well he was going the speed limit no fault for him!" No asshole, you hit someone. It's your fault. He got zero charges and the girl was seriously injured.

It's not the drivers fault when they hit a kid who darts out in front of them and they had no time to react and weren't doing anything illegal like speeding.

They could have driven with more care and attention if they're passing large vehicles that block their view of any children.

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

#493

Post by tim333 »

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 live in an area where there are pedestrians stepping into the street without looking, all over the place, and you can drive / cycle without hitting them but have to slow down appropriately if you have to go near something that you can't see behind. Like you say it would be interesting to see the video.

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

#494

Post by aanet »

mmooss wrote: post #482
aanet wrote: post #234

This is the classic Suddenly Revealed Pedestrian test case, which afaik, most NCAP (like EuroNCAP, Japan NCAP) have as part of their standard testing protocols. Having performed this exact test on 3 dozen vehicles (L2/L3/L4) for several AV companies in the Bay Area [1], I would say that Waymo's response, per their blog post [2] has been textbook compliance. (I'm not defending their performance... just their response…

In your experience, where do we find a credible source of info? Do we need to wait for the government's investigation to finish? > I would say that Waymo's response, per their blog post [2] has been textbook compliance. Remember Tesla's blog posts? Of course Waymo knows textbook compliance just like you do, and of course that's what they would claim.

> In your experience, where do we find a credible source of info? Do we need to wait for the government's investigation to finish?

Most likely, yes, the NHTSA investigation will be credible source of info for this case. HOWEVER, Waymo will likely fight it tooth-and-nail from letting it be public. They will likely cite "proprietary algorithms / design", etc. to protect it from being released publicly. So, net-net, I dunno... Will have to wait and see :shrug.gif:

But meanwhile, personally I would read reports from experts like Phil Koopman [1] and Missy Cummings [2] to see their take.

> Remember Tesla's blog posts?

You, Sir, cite two companies that are diametrically opposite on the safety spectrum, as far as good behavior is concerned. Admittedly, one would have less confidence in Waymo's own public postings about this (and I'd be mighty surprised if they actually made public their investigation data, which would be a welcome and an pioneering move).

On the other hand, the other company you mentioned, the less said the better.

[1] http://www.koopman.us/

[2] https://www.gmu.edu/profiles/cummings

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

#495

Post by chmod775 »

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…

> I honestly cannot imagine a better outcome or handling of the situation.

It's the "best outcome" if you're trying to go as fast as possible without breaking any laws or ending up liable for any damage.

German perspective, but if I told people I've been going 30km/h next to a school with poor visibility as children are dropped off around me, I would be met with contempt for that kind of behavior. I'd also at least face some partial civil liability if I hit anyone.

There's certainly better handling of the situation possible, it's just that US traffic laws and attitudes around driving do not encourage it.

I suspect many human drivers would've driven slower, law or no law.

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

#496

Post by aembleton »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #387
jobs_throwaway wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a machine that would claim to be as good as the best human driver. Does Waymo claim that? If so I haven't seen it. That should of course be the goal, but "better than the average human driver" should be the bar.

If they don't clim that, why would I be interested in their tech?

Because I'm only an average driver. Definitely not the best and have done no advanced driver training.

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

#497

Post by reddalo »

tombert wrote: post #490
belorn wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you drive in Sweden you will occasionally come up to a form of speed reduction strategy that may seem counterintuitive. They all add to make driving harder and feel more dangerous in order to force attention and lower speed. One is to merge opposite directional roads into a single lane, forcing drivers to cooperate and take turn to pass it, one car at a time. For a combined car and pedestrian road (max speed of 7k…

I've heard that that is why roundabouts are safer than their alternatives: counterintuitively, they're safer because they're less safe, forcing the user to pay more attention as a result.

>they're safer because they're less safe

Roundabouts are safer. They're safer because they prevent everybody from speeding through the intersection. And, even in case of an accident, no head-on collisions happen in a roundabout.

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

#498

Post by rsch »

yibg wrote: post #152
JKCalhoun wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think my problem is that it reacted after seeing the child step out from behind the SUV. An excellent driver would have already seen that possible scenario and would have already slowed to 10 MPH or less to begin with. (It's how I taught my daughter's to drive "defensively"—look for "red flags" and be prepared for the worst-case scenario. SUV near a school and I cannot see behind it? Red flag—slow the fuck down.)

I don't see how that's feasible without introducing a lot of friction. Near my house, almost the entire trip from the freeway to my house is via a single lane with parked cars on the side. I would have to drive 10 MPH the entire way (speed limit is 25, so 2.5x as long).

Yes.

- Parked cars on the street. - Drive somewhat fast. - Avoid killing people.

Pick two.

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

#499

Post by fragmede »

trollbridge wrote: post #209
Archio wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We accept the risks with humans because those humans accept risk. It seems very strange to defend a system that is drastically less safe because when an accident happens, at least a human will be "liable". Does a human suffering consequences (paying a fine? losing their license? going to jail?) make an injury/death more acceptable, if it wouldn't have happened with a Waymo driver in the first place?

I think a very good reason to want to know who's liable is because Google has not exactly shown itself to enthusiastically accept responsibility for harm it causes, and there is no guarantee Waymo will continue to be safe in the future. In fact, I could see Google working on a highly complex algorithm to figure out cost savings from reducing safety and balancing that against the cost of spending more on marketing and…

> Wherever I'm going, I'll be there to apply the formula. I'll keep the secret intact. It's simple arithmetic. It's a story problem. If a new car built by my company leaves Chicago traveling west at 60 miles per hour, and the rear differential locks up, and the car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside, does my company initiate a recall?

> You take the population of vehicles in the field (A) and multiple it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average cost of an out-of-court settlement (C). A times B times C equals X. This is what it will cost if we don't initiate a recall. If X is greater than the cost of a recall, we recall the cars and no one gets hurt. If X is less than the cost of a recall, then we don't recall.

-Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club

Post reply on HN