Oh, that would make sense. Thanks!

Did you honestly believe you were clarifying in a less confusing manner than the original question with this response?

You can read all California autonomous vehicle accident reports here.[1]

Most Waymo reports are "stopped in traffic, was rear-ended". There are two reports this year where the Waymo vehicle was responsible. In both cases, it was backing up while doing a three-point turn in a narrow street and bumped into something at 2MPH. So they need better sensor coverage in back.

[1] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-industry-services/auto...

not necessarily, they could be putting the car in more difficult situations as it becomes safer

I don't know about the disengage rates, but just the training model of data scares the bejeebus out of me. There was training data released and posted here on HN some time ago. I'm pretty sure the post was talking about how bad the training data was. There were all sorts of crazy things like signage being indicated in the trees or other "to a human" obviously wrong data. However, this was the supposed training data for some ML system. It was at this point that I just shook my head and walked away from interest in the subject.

They definitely care about safety. I don’t doubt their dedication to preventing accidents. My objections come from their hand waving away disengagements from the official results, shared with both regulators and Alphabet leadership. This was done to make their lead look greater than it was and to hide the slow progress with simple, required driving maneuvers like yield signs and unprotected left turns. My position had me handling driver issues directly and what the reports said did not line up with their, or my own, extensive time in the actual car.