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

761–770 of 813 posts

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

#761

Post by robotresearcher »

jjav wrote: post #716
robotresearcher wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 raise…

> 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 the difference between computing and humans. The car will attempt to compute all possible path scenarios because it has no instict, and it might not be possible to compute everything in real time so it might fail. But the human will easily deal…

In fact no computer approach attempts to compute all possible path scenarios since we know that’s not tractable.

And current practical approaches are mostly end to end (or nearly) ML systems that do not compute a lot of alternative paths, and they work in approximately constant time independent of the scenario.

You strongly imply that computers can’t drive, but you could have written that in a Waymo.

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

#762

Post by wbobeirne »

rewilder12 wrote: post #758

My read is the Waymo was operating normally in a situation a human would operate with heightened awareness and caution. This is not the win they think it is.

Some humans would operate with heightened awareness and caution. Some other humans might be drunk or looking at their phone.

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

#763

Post by Veedrac »

naet wrote: post #549

We should all think twice before taking a company PR statement completely at face value and praising them for slowing down faster than their own internal "model" says a human driver would. Companies are heavily interested in protecting their bottom line and in a situation like this probably had 5-10 people carefully craft every single word of the statement for maximum damage control. Surprised at how many comments he…

Have you been around a Waymo as a pedestrian? Used one recently? I have never felt as safe around any car as I do around Waymos.

It can feel principled to take the critical stance, but ultimately the authorities are going to have complete video of the event, and penalizing Waymo over this out of proportion to the harm done is just going to make the streets less safe. A 6mph crash is best avoided, but it's a scrap, it's one child running into another and knocking them over, it's not _face jail time_.

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

#764

Post by franktankbank »

Analemma_ wrote: post #357
bhewes wrote: post #313

The a human would do it better people are hilarious. Given how many times I have been hit by human drives on my bike and watched others get creamed by a cars. One time in Boulder at a flashing cross walk a person ran right through it and the biker they creamed got stuck in the roof rack.

Yeah I have to wonder if any of the "humans would do it better" people actually have children and have dropped them off in a school zone. Drivers are on their phones rolling through school zones at 25-30 during pickup/dropoff hours all the fucking time.

Humans do it better and worse. Which one should the robo tend towards?

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

#765

Post by mlsu »

javchz wrote: post #644
mlsu wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An honest account of this situation would place at least some blame on there being a tall SUV blocking visibility. These giant SUVs really are the worst when it comes to child safety

I bet we'll the the SUV mania in the future as something crazy, like smoking in a plane or using lead for gasoline. Irrational large size cars that people get because everyone it's afraid of another SUV hitting them in a sedan. The tragedy of the commons.

You're right, but there will be some brand new, even worse social psychosis by then, surely. Cigarette smoking actually makes more sense to me than giant cars -- at least it only hurts the person doing the smoking!

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

#766

Post by danielmarkbruce »

padjo wrote: post #672
danielmarkbruce wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know anyone who works at Waymo? The cynicism is silly. Just because some people at some companies behave horribly, it doesn't mean all or even most do. Look at Waymo's history in the space, meet some of the people working there, then make a decision.

You don't have to think anyone is behaving horribly to acknowledge that a company's PR department will tend to put out the version of the story that makes them look best.

Everyone knows that. So, there is no point saying it. The insightful thing to say would be "Actually Waymo has a long history of operating in a transparent way, hasn't rushed the technology like other players did (killing people) and perhaps we can take them at face value".

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

#767

Post by WalterBright »

jacquesm wrote: post #693
WalterBright wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once rounded a blind curve on a non-residential street only to find a man on a bicycle pulling a trailer with his baby in it, stopped in the middle of the road. I stopped and yelled at him, which surprised him. That incident still gives me the willies.

You yelled at someone because you were in the wrong? Panic reaction?

I did not panic. If I had hit his baby, I would have been legally in the wrong. A fat lot of good that would have done the baby or the father.

It's monumentally stupid to be in the middle of a narrow road around a blind corner. People speed around blind corners all the time.

Consider a crosswalk. The law says traffic must stop for anyone setting foot in the crosswalk. But it's crazy to step into a crosswalk assuming drivers will stop for you. I always wait until they actually stop before I step into it.

I remember a public service commercial from the 60s advocating the idea that one shouldn't be right, dead right, and to use common sense.

I talked to a cyclist once who told me about his legal rights to ride a bike in traffic. I asked him but what if a car hits you? He smugly replied that then he'd win a massive lawsuit. I then asked him what good would that do him if he was paralyzed? He then looked startled.

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

#768

Post by JumpCrisscross »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #746
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They have to be, as a machine can not be held accountable for a decision This logic applies equally to all cars, which are machines. Waymo has its decision makers one more step removed than human drivers. But it’s not a good axiom to base any theory of liability on.

In traditional vehicles, liability is structurally centered on the human driver, and product liability exists but is difficult to assert absent clear or systemic defects. Autonomous driving systems disrupt this by directly assuming the driving function, forcing liability upstream (where it's significantly more difficult to navigate). So now it's driver vs injured party. Self-driving makes it trillion dollar company v…

> now it's driver vs injured party. Self-driving makes it trillion dollar company vs injured party

It’s historically been my insurance company versus your insurance company or an uninsured driver. (Or I’m Apple Paying you $5k so my fender bender doesn’t show up on insurance.)

Now it’s my insurance company versus the insurance company of a client who can pay damages. The number of cases where drivers are individually litigating is relatively rare and preserved against e.g. Waymo.

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

#769

Post by WalterBright »

jacquesm wrote: post #702
joha4270 wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever our human laws and morality says about right and wrong and fault, the laws of physics usually judges the car a winner when it hits somebody. Placing yourself somewhere where pedestrians are not expected (non-residental road) mostly hidden from oncoming traffic for an extended period is putting yourself in undue risk.

You don't always have a choice about where you are momentarily and anybody turning a blind corner has an obligation to immediately reduce their speed (prior to turning the corner!) to where they can safely come to a stop without endangering others. That's drivers education 101. Right after 'don't text while driving', 'don't drink while driving' and 'slow down when there are pedestrians, bicycles and other fragile roa…

You'd be legally right, dead right.

I walk that road many times. I hug the side on the outside of the turn (there's no room on the inside) and so I can see (and be seen) from further away. I listen for cars coming. I watch for them. I am prepared to jump over the railing.

It's just common sense.

BTW, do you know that if you rear-end someone, it's your fault? I once was in heavy traffic, and the traffic in front of me stopped abruptly. I hit the brakes hard. I also glanced in the rearview mirror and realized the truck behind me was not going to stop in time. So I quickly pulled onto the shoulder. The truck hit the car in front of me.

But fortunately, that gave the truck a precious few more feet of stopping distance, and the collision with the car in front was minor.

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

#770

Post by WalterBright »

joha4270 wrote: post #701
jacquesm wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You yelled at someone because you were in the wrong? Panic reaction?

Whatever our human laws and morality says about right and wrong and fault, the laws of physics usually judges the car a winner when it hits somebody. Placing yourself somewhere where pedestrians are not expected (non-residental road) mostly hidden from oncoming traffic for an extended period is putting yourself in undue risk.

Last year I was driving on an arterial, with a 35mph speed limit, that was a miles long downhill grade. There was a bike lane on the right. In it was a girl maybe 12, and on the back of it was another girl maybe 6. With the downhill, she was able to go about 20mph. Suddenly, she veers into the center of the car lane. Never looked over her shoulder. (Traffic was lining up behind me.) She then rides a bit on the stripe separating the bike land from the car lane. Then back to center of the car lane. Then in the bike lane, then back to the car lane. Back and forth. She never looked over her shoulder. I never dared to pass her, even when she was in the bike lane.

OMG

Post reply on HN