If what Waymo wrote is true, this sounds more like kids fault or guardian’s.
Waymo robotaxi hits a child near an elementary school in Santa Monica
581–590 of 813 posts
Re: Waymo robotaxi hits a child near an elementary school in Santa Monica
#582Earlier 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…
> 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.
When walking along a busy street facing traffic, I like to play a game of "who's using a phone?" I sometimes score in excess of 50% of drivers texting or otherwise manipulating a phone instead of actually driving.
It's amazing how much nonsense we let slide with human drivers, and then get uptight about with anything else. You see the same attitude with bicycles. Cars run stop signs and red lights all day long and nobody bats an eye, but a cyclist does it and suddenly they're a menace.
Re: Waymo robotaxi hits a child near an elementary school in Santa Monica
#583From the Waymo blog...
> The Waymo Driver braked hard...
By Waymo Driver, they don't mean a human, do they?
Re: Waymo robotaxi hits a child near an elementary school in Santa Monica
#584Earlier 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…
> The car only slows down after seeing someone.
How do you know that? The article says it slowed from 17 mph. That’s cautious progress speed, not cruising speed.
Re: Waymo robotaxi hits a child near an elementary school in Santa Monica
#585Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 visi…
Do they speculate about things like “we’re near a school zone, kids are unloading, there might be a kid I’ve never seen behind that SUV?” (I’m legitimately asking I’ve never been in a Waymo).
It's not particularly meaningful to ponder the subjective experience of the waymo driving computer. Instead, focus on its externally visible behavior.
Re: Waymo robotaxi hits a child near an elementary school in Santa Monica
#586I know submissions are not meant to contain modifications to article titles, but would it be so bad to have added "at 6mph" and/or "minor injuries" to the title?
I don't disagree with you but unfortunately I needed to keep from editorializing and I was restricted by a strict title length limit.
Re: Waymo robotaxi hits a child near an elementary school in Santa Monica
#587Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're safer specifically for vehicles, as they convert many conflicts that would be t-bones (worst for passengers) into getting rear-ended (maximum crumple zone on both vehicles). Roundabouts are worse for land use though, which impacts walkability, and the safety story for pedestrians and bike users with them is decidedly not great as well.
>Roundabouts are worse for land use though, which impacts walkability, and the safety story for pedestrians and bike users with them is decidedly not great as well. They're much safer for pedestrians than intersections. You're only crossing and dealing with traffic coming from one direction, stopping at a median, and then crossing further over. Unlike trying to navigate a crosswalk where you have to play guessing gam…
In Waterloo Region I used to cycle through multiple intersections that were "upgraded" some years ago from conventional stoplights to roundabouts and imo it was a huge downgrade to my sense of safety. I went from having a clear right of way (hand signal, cross in the crosswalk) to feeling completely invisible to cars, essentially dashing across the road in the gaps in traffic as if I was jaywalking.
I could handle it as an adult just walking my bike but it would be a nightmare for someone pushing a stroller or dependent on a mobility device.
Re: Waymo robotaxi hits a child near an elementary school in Santa Monica
#588Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 I don't think this is true. There are infinitely many scenarios in a complex situation like a road with traffic, cars parked, pedestrians about, weather, etc. My brain might be able to quickly assess a handful, but certainly not all.
This is the classical ‘Frame Problem” of AI. How do you consider, even if only to reject, infinite scenarios in finite time? Humans and other animals don’t seem to suffer from it.
Re: Waymo robotaxi hits a child near an elementary school in Santa Monica
#589Earlier 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 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. Alternativ…
> Does Waymo have the same object permanence and trajectory prediction (combined) to that of a human?
On this note specifically ive actually been impressed, ie when driving down Oak st in SF (fast road, tightly parked cars) I've often observed it slow if someone on a scooter on the sidewalk turns to look toward oncoming traffic (as if to start riding), or to slow passing parked box trucks (which block vision of potential pedestrians)
Re: Waymo robotaxi hits a child near an elementary school in Santa Monica
#590Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A human brain automatically thinks of all the scenarios I don't think this is true. There are infinitely many scenarios in a complex situation like a road with traffic, cars parked, pedestrians about, weather, etc. My brain might be able to quickly assess a handful, but certainly not all.
There aren't infinitely many scenarios to consider, but even if that's a figure of speech, there aren't thousands or even hundreds. If there's ten kids nearby, that's basically ten path scenarios, and that might be reduced if you have great visibility into some of them. > My brain might be able to quickly assess a handful, but certainly not all. What would you do if you can't assess all of them? Just keep driving sam…
> here aren't infinitely many scenarios to consider, but even if that's a figure of speech, there aren't thousands or even hundreds.
There are a very, very large number of scenarios. Every single possible different state the robot can perceive, and every possible near future they can be projected to.
Ten kids is not 10 path scenarios. Every kid could do a vast number of different things, and each additional kid raises the number of joint states to another power.
This is trivially true. The game that makes driving possible for humans and robots is that all these scenarios are not equally likely.
But even with that insight, it’s not easy. Consider a simple case of three cars about to arrive at an all-way stop. Tiny differences in their acceleration - potentially smaller differences than the robot can measure - will result in a different ordering of cars taking turns through the intersection.
It’s a really interesting problem.