During Google’s early self-driving tests, there were over “a dozen accidents” | Hacker News Reader

During Google’s early self-driving tests, there were over “a dozen accidents”

arstechnica.com

17 pointsAndrewDucker8 comments

  Prior to 2014, AV companies' collisions were not required to be reported under California state law.

This is false. A collision resulting in any injury or total damage over $1000 ($750 before 2017) has to be reported on SR-1 forms regardless of whether there was a police report; this requirement goes back to at least 1982.

Duh, this was 7 year ago. Who thought it started off perfect. How does that affect their performance now after thousands of rides and way better equipment?

If these incidents were covered up, why would you trust anything else they say?

They often claim after a crash that the vehicle was in manual mode. Do you trust that?

They need to come clean, they need to become more transparent, and most importantly, they need to be regulated with an iron fist.

They weren't covered up though. They weren't required to disclose them because there were no regulations. There is no proof that they have frequent crashes now that the technology mature and their no proof that thats not true.

Also, why would they be so heavily regulated for no reason? Would you also do that with the internet, phones, or new technology? You provide regulation based on a problem that occurs that's unfair and bad practice to just make rules to perceived problems.

There was no autonomous mode reporting requirement, but as I understand The New Yorker report, they probably should have contacted the authorities because they were involved in a crash.

Their main claim to fame is driving 10M miles in autonomous mode without any serious incidents. The crash, as described by The New Yorker, was a serious incident that was at least partially caused by their software behaving recklessly.

https://www.pe.com/2011/01/03/who-has-right-of-way-when-merg...

The New Yorker also mentions other incidents that were never reported to the public.

Why iron fisted regulation?

Their software may soon control thousands of two-ton SUVs on public roads. They've shown no intention of being transparent. They've shown that safety is not their number of priority.

I am not necessarily saying they should be prevented from operating, but strict regulation is required to protect the public.

As a non native speaker... What does it mean to box in a car? I can imagine a few scenarios but none really seem to match with the left/right veering action story from the article. Does it just mean not allowing them to merge onto the highway? And if so, why didn't the affected car stop or merge behind the Waymo car?

You are correct; as far as I understand the term it means the Waymo car kept pace with (stayed next to) the other car (Camry) such that the Camry could not merge. I am also confused why the Camry could not just slow down and merge behind, but we don't have enough information to make any kind of determination.

> And if so, why didn't the affected car stop or merge behind the Waymo car?

A driver with tunnel vision, probably.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com